I’ve written many times before about the consistency of the panel, and these findings bear the point out yet again. We received just under 700 responses to this latest survey, compared to about 990 in 2020 and some 850 in 2021.
Just look at the attrition rate. Death and dementia will do that to some demographics.
Pavement parking is a huge deal for disabled people and people wheeling prams around. It's become more prevalent as people buy SUVs that require more space, and have the clearance to mount the kerb.
Obstruction of a pavement is an offence UK wide.
Absolutely. My sister is a wheelchair user and this is a constant issue, drivers don't realise (or, increasingly, don't care) how dangerous pavement parking it. And illegal, but of course there's zero enforcement.
I've taken to printing and carrying stickers that basically say "please don't park on the pavement. thanks." and slapping them on offender's windscreens. That the stickers are of a type that leaves difficult to clean adhesive residue behind is merely a coincidence...
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
FPT - I've yet to meet anyone who respects Sadiq Khan.
I know a couple of New Labour SPADs who laughed out loud when I mentioned his name, and a few people in business who'd met him who said he was completely barking.
I think even the people who vote for him do so with clothes pegs on their nose.
I've yet to meet an actual Sadiq Khan VOTER - as in someone who openly and avowedly says "Oh yes I'm voting for him". Most people say Meh, what a boring jerk. The full-on haters really hate him. A small minority say "Oh well he';s not great but I might have to"
Yet he's apparently coasting to victory again
I am sure I live in something of an ethnic bubble, more white than most of London, but that bubble is politically diverse from UKIP Brexiteers to plenty of lefties (of all classes)
I cannot find an enthusiastic Khan voter. He is eminently beatable and it is pathetic that the Tories have not found anyone to do it
Where’s the Londoner Andy Street?
There must be one somewhere, a successful and well-known London businessperson willing to stand against an unpopular mayor. My first thought would be someone like Charlie Mullins, if he’s not enjoying his money too much, then I realised that he’s now 70 so probably wouldn’t want to do it.
Besides,
Pimlico Plumbers donated £22,735 to the Conservative Party in 2015, and Mullins donated more than £48,000, in the two years to July 2017. He was a business adviser to David Cameron and George Osborne, and has been a vocal critic of Brexit.
In January 2018, Mullins announced that he would no longer be a Conservative Party donor, and declared his candidacy as an independent at the 2021 London mayoral election (which had been scheduled for 2020, before being postponed) but Mullins did not appear on the ballot paper. In March 2018, Mullins said he would financially support the Liberal Democrats to support their campaign to prevent Brexit.
If a party chooses to chase retired homeowners, that's a valid choice and overall an electorally sound one. But it has consequences.
I think the Tory brand is trashed beyond recovery for about a decade in London.
Here is Susan Hall AM's latest selfie. Look at the kissy-kissy-doggie.
But fail completely to comment on the antisocial pavement parkers all the way up the street forcing wheelchair users, pram / buggy pushers and mobility scooter users into the traffic. Except that if there is no convenient drop kerb they will unable to turn around and will be stranded.
IS there no end to the evil of the Blue team ?
Pavement parking is a huge deal for disabled people and people wheeling prams around. It's become more prevalent as people buy SUVs that require more space, and have the clearance to mount the kerb.
Obstruction of a pavement is an offence UK wide.
In London there is no end imo to the cynicism of the blue team. But I think they will be seen through by next year.
Outside London (and maybe Scotland if it is in yet) that's not enforcible by Highway Authorities as there is no marking demonstrating illegal parking, but in most places police would enforce on the particular obstruction because it is positively dangerous in preventing access. Usually they refuse to do so in less clear-cut cases.
There are defensible grey area informal and activist options like a YPLAC sticker or "oh dear I didn't notice I scratched that car door with my wheelchair / pram / pedal squeezing through". Or outright vandalism, which cannot be condoned.
But I think *something* changed on 1st August this year, as Reach has been covering something. Don't know more yet - it may be that LHAs can now get London style powers if they apply to the Minister, and he says yes.
The Heavy Lorry levy has also come back in after COVID-suspension and is supposed to be raising £1.5 bn for Rishi.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
I think Mike your headline is misleading. It is not Conservative members but a panel who are made up as in trhe following quote from the report:: "I’ve written many times before about the consistency of the panel, and these findings bear the point out yet again. We received just under 700 responses to this latest survey, compared to about 990 in 2020 and some 850 in 2021"
The responders are going to be predominately negative, because they will have the greater psychological incentive to respond. Those who are content with things will bother less. It also could be said that the actual numbers, not the percentage, registering negatively now are less than in 2020!
I'm sadly not suprised. I use one local to me for homebrewing stuff and other bits and bod and this year they just have not had the stock so I have been going to Boyes instead.
Shopping in a high street is so last century
Which is weird, because the massive new St James' Quarter in Edinburgh is essentially a pedestrianised High Street.
Yes, I was there a couple of weeks ago, and it's fine, although normally I hate shopping 'malls'. It helps having a large John Lewis. We weren't impressed with Princess Street, however, which seems to be going the same way as Oxford Street.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
Many I feel that advocate see climate change as a vehicle to push an agenda. They get push back therefore. For example I dont drive, rarely fly this year will be my second flight in 20 years and that is to see my half sister in belfast. However while I don't do much to contribute to co2 they still come after me because I eat meat. They can fuck off
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
Many I feel that advocate see climate change as a vehicle to push an agenda. They get push back therefore. For example I dont drive, rarely fly this year will be my second flight in 20 years and that is to see my half sister in belfast. However while I don't do much to contribute to co2 they still come after me because I eat meat. They can fuck off
They can indeed. And there you are, modest in your CO2 consumption as you note, and there is a non-trivial probability of being stopped on your way to the airport by JSO. And then everyone wonders why there is so much antipathy to their cause.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
Many I feel that advocate see climate change as a vehicle to push an agenda. They get push back therefore. For example I dont drive, rarely fly this year will be my second flight in 20 years and that is to see my half sister in belfast. However while I don't do much to contribute to co2 they still come after me because I eat meat. They can fuck off
They can indeed. And there you are, modest in your CO2 consumption as you note, and there is a non-trivial probability of being stopped on your way to the airport by JSO. And then everyone wonders why there is so much antipathy to their cause.
Most jso members probably have a bigger carbon footprint than me
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
There is a positive case for mitigation, particularly in the UK. Our economy could take advantage given our current reliance on imported ICE cars and our wind energy potential. The Environmental Kuznets Curve can be flattened for other countries if we lead the way embracing new green technologies.
On adaptation - this is a simple CBA. We need to starting thinking about flooding, heatwaves etc now before it's too late.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
There is a positive case for mitigation, particularly in the UK. Our economy could take advantage given our current reliance on imported ICE cars and our wind energy potential. The Environmental Kuznets Curve can be flattened for other countries if we lead the way embracing new green technologies.
On adaptation - this is a simple CBA. We need to starting thinking about flooding, heatwaves etc now before it's too late.
Your thinking does not take into account that there are a lot of people think the extinction of the human race might be a good thing.
I'm sadly not suprised. I use one local to me for homebrewing stuff and other bits and bod and this year they just have not had the stock so I have been going to Boyes instead.
Shopping in a high street is so last century
Which is weird, because the massive new St James' Quarter in Edinburgh is essentially a pedestrianised High Street.
Yes, I was there a couple of weeks ago, and it's fine, although normally I hate shopping 'malls'. It helps having a large John Lewis. We weren't impressed with Princess Street, however, which seems to be going the same way as Oxford Street.
At a quick look it seems like the Victoria Centre in Nottingham, plus a hotel but with 300 fewer apartments.
FPT - I've yet to meet anyone who respects Sadiq Khan.
I know a couple of New Labour SPADs who laughed out loud when I mentioned his name, and a few people in business who'd met him who said he was completely barking.
I think even the people who vote for him do so with clothes pegs on their nose.
I've yet to meet an actual Sadiq Khan VOTER - as in someone who openly and avowedly says "Oh yes I'm voting for him". Most people say Meh, what a boring jerk. The full-on haters really hate him. A small minority say "Oh well he';s not great but I might have to"
Yet he's apparently coasting to victory again
I am sure I live in something of an ethnic bubble, more white than most of London, but that bubble is politically diverse from UKIP Brexiteers to plenty of lefties (of all classes)
I cannot find an enthusiastic Khan voter. He is eminently beatable and it is pathetic that the Tories have not found anyone to do it
Where’s the Londoner Andy Street?
There must be one somewhere, a successful and well-known London businessperson willing to stand against an unpopular mayor. My first thought would be someone like Charlie Mullins, if he’s not enjoying his money too much, then I realised that he’s now 70 so probably wouldn’t want to do it.
Besides,
Pimlico Plumbers donated £22,735 to the Conservative Party in 2015, and Mullins donated more than £48,000, in the two years to July 2017. He was a business adviser to David Cameron and George Osborne, and has been a vocal critic of Brexit.
In January 2018, Mullins announced that he would no longer be a Conservative Party donor, and declared his candidacy as an independent at the 2021 London mayoral election (which had been scheduled for 2020, before being postponed) but Mullins did not appear on the ballot paper. In March 2018, Mullins said he would financially support the Liberal Democrats to support their campaign to prevent Brexit.
If a party chooses to chase retired homeowners, that's a valid choice and overall an electorally sound one. But it has consequences.
I think the Tory brand is trashed beyond recovery for about a decade in London.
Here is Susan Hall AM's latest selfie. Look at the kissy-kissy-doggie.
But fail completely to comment on the antisocial pavement parkers all the way up the street forcing wheelchair users, pram / buggy pushers and mobility scooter users into the traffic. Except that if there is no convenient drop kerb they will unable to turn around and will be stranded.
IS there no end to the evil of the Blue team ?
Pavement parking is a huge deal for disabled people and people wheeling prams around. It's become more prevalent as people buy SUVs that require more space, and have the clearance to mount the kerb.
Obstruction of a pavement is an offence UK wide.
In London there is no end imo to the cynicism of the blue team. But I think they will be seen through by next year.
Outside London (and maybe Scotland if it is in yet) that's not enforcible by Highway Authorities as there is no marking demonstrating illegal parking, but in most places police would enforce on the particular obstruction because it is positively dangerous in preventing access. Usually they refuse to do so in less clear-cut cases.
There are defensible grey area informal and activist options like a YPLAC sticker or "oh dear I didn't notice I scratched that car door with my wheelchair / pram / pedal squeezing through". Or outright vandalism, which cannot be condoned.
But I think *something* changed on 1st August this year, as Reach has been covering something. Don't know more yet - it may be that LHAs can now get London style powers if they apply to the Minister, and he says yes.
The Heavy Lorry levy has also come back in after COVID-suspension and is supposed to be raising £1.5 bn for Rishi.
and Thanet P is a huge monument to the glory of the British Empire at the entrance to the Province, er, Motherland?
They do seem rather confident the trains will always still run through the currently soggy wetlands on the various lines out of the station.
I don't care about the service NOW, I just want to admire the beauty of this structure - "built for the future and many generations to come"
How true. Look at it. This is the Taj Mahal of Parkways, the Hoover Dam of Errr, the Great Pyramid of Prison Loading Bays inexplicably turned into "stations"
and Thanet P is a huge monument to the glory of the British Empire at the entrance to the Province, er, Motherland?
They do seem rather confident the trains will always still run through the currently soggy wetlands on the various lines out of the station.
I don't care about the service NOW, I just want to admire the beauty of this structure - "built for the future and many generations to come"
How true. Look at it. This is the Taj Mahal of Parkways, the Hoover Dam of Errr, the Great Pyramid of Prison Loading Bays inexplicably turned into "stations"
insofar as he doesn't seem to be vacuous or a bullshitter
You'll have to point me to these media appearances, because in the ones I've seen, he seems both vacuous and a bullshitter, with a side-helping of irritable and groundlessly patronising.
FPT - I've yet to meet anyone who respects Sadiq Khan.
I know a couple of New Labour SPADs who laughed out loud when I mentioned his name, and a few people in business who'd met him who said he was completely barking.
I think even the people who vote for him do so with clothes pegs on their nose.
I've yet to meet an actual Sadiq Khan VOTER - as in someone who openly and avowedly says "Oh yes I'm voting for him". Most people say Meh, what a boring jerk. The full-on haters really hate him. A small minority say "Oh well he';s not great but I might have to"
Yet he's apparently coasting to victory again
I am sure I live in something of an ethnic bubble, more white than most of London, but that bubble is politically diverse from UKIP Brexiteers to plenty of lefties (of all classes)
I cannot find an enthusiastic Khan voter. He is eminently beatable and it is pathetic that the Tories have not found anyone to do it
Where’s the Londoner Andy Street?
There must be one somewhere, a successful and well-known London businessperson willing to stand against an unpopular mayor. My first thought would be someone like Charlie Mullins, if he’s not enjoying his money too much, then I realised that he’s now 70 so probably wouldn’t want to do it.
Besides,
Pimlico Plumbers donated £22,735 to the Conservative Party in 2015, and Mullins donated more than £48,000, in the two years to July 2017. He was a business adviser to David Cameron and George Osborne, and has been a vocal critic of Brexit.
In January 2018, Mullins announced that he would no longer be a Conservative Party donor, and declared his candidacy as an independent at the 2021 London mayoral election (which had been scheduled for 2020, before being postponed) but Mullins did not appear on the ballot paper. In March 2018, Mullins said he would financially support the Liberal Democrats to support their campaign to prevent Brexit.
If a party chooses to chase retired homeowners, that's a valid choice and overall an electorally sound one. But it has consequences.
I think the Tory brand is trashed beyond recovery for about a decade in London.
Here is Susan Hall AM's latest selfie. Look at the kissy-kissy-doggie.
But fail completely to comment on the antisocial pavement parkers all the way up the street forcing wheelchair users, pram / buggy pushers and mobility scooter users into the traffic. Except that if there is no convenient drop kerb they will unable to turn around and will be stranded.
IS there no end to the evil of the Blue team ?
Pavement parking is a huge deal for disabled people and people wheeling prams around. It's become more prevalent as people buy SUVs that require more space, and have the clearance to mount the kerb.
Obstruction of a pavement is an offence UK wide.
In London there is no end imo to the cynicism of the blue team. But I think they will be seen through by next year.
Outside London (and maybe Scotland if it is in yet) that's not enforcible by Highway Authorities as there is no marking demonstrating illegal parking, but in most places police would enforce on the particular obstruction because it is positively dangerous in preventing access. Usually they refuse to do so in less clear-cut cases.
There are defensible grey area informal and activist options like a YPLAC sticker or "oh dear I didn't notice I scratched that car door with my wheelchair / pram / pedal squeezing through". Or outright vandalism, which cannot be condoned.
But I think *something* changed on 1st August this year, as Reach has been covering something. Don't know more yet - it may be that LHAs can now get London style powers if they apply to the Minister, and he says yes.
The Heavy Lorry levy has also come back in after COVID-suspension and is supposed to be raising £1.5 bn for Rishi.
The YPLAC stickers are great.
There was a genuinely funny one last week, appreciated by the Landrover owner, that was framed as as offering free penis-enlargement for 4x4 drivers in the city.
"A black-and-white card stated: "Do you drive a Jeep, 4X4 or Range Rover in the city? You could be entitled to free penis enlargement therapy on the NHS." There were images of the models and a number which goes to voicemail also on the card."
Far from being angry, Mr Chester, who describes himself as environmentally conscious, said he understood the mystery fly-poster's view and was grateful no damage was done. The 46-year-old said: "I'm all for people having an opinion and being allowed to protest.
FPT - I've yet to meet anyone who respects Sadiq Khan.
I know a couple of New Labour SPADs who laughed out loud when I mentioned his name, and a few people in business who'd met him who said he was completely barking.
I think even the people who vote for him do so with clothes pegs on their nose.
I've yet to meet an actual Sadiq Khan VOTER - as in someone who openly and avowedly says "Oh yes I'm voting for him". Most people say Meh, what a boring jerk. The full-on haters really hate him. A small minority say "Oh well he';s not great but I might have to"
Yet he's apparently coasting to victory again
I am sure I live in something of an ethnic bubble, more white than most of London, but that bubble is politically diverse from UKIP Brexiteers to plenty of lefties (of all classes)
I cannot find an enthusiastic Khan voter. He is eminently beatable and it is pathetic that the Tories have not found anyone to do it
Where’s the Londoner Andy Street?
There must be one somewhere, a successful and well-known London businessperson willing to stand against an unpopular mayor. My first thought would be someone like Charlie Mullins, if he’s not enjoying his money too much, then I realised that he’s now 70 so probably wouldn’t want to do it.
Besides,
Pimlico Plumbers donated £22,735 to the Conservative Party in 2015, and Mullins donated more than £48,000, in the two years to July 2017. He was a business adviser to David Cameron and George Osborne, and has been a vocal critic of Brexit.
In January 2018, Mullins announced that he would no longer be a Conservative Party donor, and declared his candidacy as an independent at the 2021 London mayoral election (which had been scheduled for 2020, before being postponed) but Mullins did not appear on the ballot paper. In March 2018, Mullins said he would financially support the Liberal Democrats to support their campaign to prevent Brexit.
If a party chooses to chase retired homeowners, that's a valid choice and overall an electorally sound one. But it has consequences.
I think the Tory brand is trashed beyond recovery for about a decade in London.
Here is Susan Hall AM's latest selfie. Look at the kissy-kissy-doggie.
But fail completely to comment on the antisocial pavement parkers all the way up the street forcing wheelchair users, pram / buggy pushers and mobility scooter users into the traffic. Except that if there is no convenient drop kerb they will unable to turn around and will be stranded.
IS there no end to the evil of the Blue team ?
Pavement parking is a huge deal for disabled people and people wheeling prams around. It's become more prevalent as people buy SUVs that require more space, and have the clearance to mount the kerb.
Obstruction of a pavement is an offence UK wide.
Call the bloody Police then, also the bush protruding like that is a menace and should be trimmed back. I had a letter from the council once as I had neglected one of mine and I needed to trim it as it impeded the pavement.
It is a harmless photo op and the first reaction of a poster is to go into a rant about the candidate not commenting on the evils of pavement parking. Get a grip
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Even in a democracy, people will accept the need for blood, sweat and tears if they can see that the end justifies the means. All it needs is good, strong leadership. If the right is simply going to throw up its hands and say there's nothing we can do, it's hardly a surprise if people look to the left for solutions.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Even in a democracy, people will accept the need for blood, sweat and tears if they can see that the end justifies the means. All it needs is good, strong leadership. If the right is simply going to throw up its hands and say there's nothing we can do, it's hardly a surprise if people look to the left for solutions.
The left have no answers because they cant mandate the hair shirt solutions either
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Even in a democracy, people will accept the need for blood, sweat and tears if they can see that the end justifies the means. All it needs is good, strong leadership. If the right is simply going to throw up its hands and say there's nothing we can do, it's hardly a surprise if people look to the left for solutions.
The left have no answers because they cant mandate the hair shirt solutions either
Besides which there are a fair amount of people in the uk who will go...oh the climate in the uk will become more like the mediterranean countries and wont see that as a bad thing
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
"OPINION DAVID BROOKS What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?
In this story we anti-Trumpers are the good guys, the forces of progress and enlightenment. The Trumpers are reactionary bigots and authoritarians. Many Republicans support Trump no matter what, according to this story, because at the end of the day he’s still the bigot in chief, the embodiment of their resentments, and that’s what matters to them most.
I partly agree with this story; but it’s also a monument to elite self-satisfaction.
So let me try another story on you. I ask you to try on a vantage point in which we anti-Trumpers are not the eternal good guys. In fact, we’re the bad guys."
What if David Brooks is the monument to elite self-satisfaction here ?
Ha! Yes, he seems to be! Then again, he doesn't seem to "merit" a job producing articles that are supposed to be well written and interesting.
It's a typical piece in which the author demonstrates some literary skill in joining stuff together from one paragraph to the next, but the actual stuff that he joins together is any old bollocks he found on a rubbish dump somewhere, and while there's limited cohesion there's no coherence. There are whole books like this nowadays, e.g. by Naomi Klein, and I would say by Paul Mason too if he had some skill at joining stuff together.
"Meritocracy" is a ghastly word - perhaps chosen by Michael Young for that very reason - but the concept is worse, possibly even worse than "democracy". Some "deserve" to rule for some reason - really? "Meritocracy" and "woke" are two ideas that the left cannot get a handle on, leaving the right to have much more room for manoeuvre. (And that's bad.)
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
The problem with all those things is that they are spending upfront now for benefits in the future. As humans, we're not great at that calculus. Something about the British psyche makes us worse than average. The current iteration of the political right encourages us to be worse still.
You know that quote about how a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in? Quite a few of our leaders (loosely defined) would rather cut the tree down so they can sell the wood and not have to deal with the leaves each autumn.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
I don’t know whether that’s a non sequitur or just nonsense.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
That's all well and good, but there is a risk of feeding a sense of entitlement that then refuses to accept any changes that might entail any reduction in living standards for anyone. Technology can't do everything, and it is very likely that some aspects of our lives will indeed have to change in order to be able to achieve sustainability. For example, it is hard to see how the current level of commercial flights can exist in a net-zero world. If we pretend that this is not the case, then it won't be a surprise if democratic support is lacking when change becomes unavoidable.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
There is a positive case for mitigation, particularly in the UK. Our economy could take advantage given our current reliance on imported ICE cars and our wind energy potential. The Environmental Kuznets Curve can be flattened for other countries if we lead the way embracing new green technologies.
On adaptation - this is a simple CBA. We need to starting thinking about flooding, heatwaves etc now before it's too late.
Yes flooding, heatwaves, pestilence.
The most compelling argument for recycling, for example, comes from works such as Porter's Economics of Waste. Using the idea of landfill exhaustion (out of date but provides, as he says, a simple theory) he examines the economics of recycling involving units of production, effort, and consumption when considering recycling in a two-year model.
Perfectly rational and involves recycling to maximise consumption per unit of effort.
But give me a break about the Lincolnshire becoming uninhabitable (we can only hope), etc.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
I don’t know whether that’s a non sequitur or just nonsense.
No its just being realistic, people will not vote in the uk for the measures needed to halt climate change and even if they did it wouldnt matter because none of the global community will stomach them.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
The problem with all those things is that they are spending upfront now for benefits in the future. As humans, we're not great at that calculus. Something about the British psyche makes us worse than average. The current iteration of the political right encourages us to be worse still.
You know that quote about how a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in? Quite a few of our leaders (loosely defined) would rather cut the tree down so they can sell the wood and not have to deal with the leaves each autumn.
And quite a few of our bureaucrat-class would rather change the rules so that (to continue your analogy) each tree has to be inspected by a civil servant, so as to bloat the state even further.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
For many years fluorescent tubes were the single biggest argument against climate mitigation. Thank god for LED.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
There is a positive case for mitigation, particularly in the UK. Our economy could take advantage given our current reliance on imported ICE cars and our wind energy potential. The Environmental Kuznets Curve can be flattened for other countries if we lead the way embracing new green technologies.
On adaptation - this is a simple CBA. We need to starting thinking about flooding, heatwaves etc now before it's too late.
Oh and I am assuming here for all real world applications CBA is used in the Yoof sense of the acronym.
FPT - I've yet to meet anyone who respects Sadiq Khan.
I know a couple of New Labour SPADs who laughed out loud when I mentioned his name, and a few people in business who'd met him who said he was completely barking.
I think even the people who vote for him do so with clothes pegs on their nose.
I've yet to meet an actual Sadiq Khan VOTER - as in someone who openly and avowedly says "Oh yes I'm voting for him". Most people say Meh, what a boring jerk. The full-on haters really hate him. A small minority say "Oh well he';s not great but I might have to"
Yet he's apparently coasting to victory again
I am sure I live in something of an ethnic bubble, more white than most of London, but that bubble is politically diverse from UKIP Brexiteers to plenty of lefties (of all classes)
I cannot find an enthusiastic Khan voter. He is eminently beatable and it is pathetic that the Tories have not found anyone to do it
Like all generalisations that doesn't quite hold - I know several people, not all regularly Labour, who like him. The usual reason given is "a serious guy who has a positive agenda, unlike Boris". All of them strongly disapprove of Starmer's attempt to push him, and want him to say "sod off, Keir, I'm running London and we need clean air".
Anecdata, I know. I think there is a structural problem - the Mayoral office is mostly motivational rather than policy-focused, so you really need a bit of rah-rah-London-is-great stuff, which isn't Sadiq's style. But he'll still beat the Tory candidate by a country mile.
MoL is a weird job. Ideally you need a mix of Boris and a really good administrator, which ain't going to happen. Split the role in two somehow with a Cheerleader for London and an Administrator for London.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
How will we know when that moment arrives. According to the papers we are there now. Or are we not there yet?
FPT - I've yet to meet anyone who respects Sadiq Khan.
I know a couple of New Labour SPADs who laughed out loud when I mentioned his name, and a few people in business who'd met him who said he was completely barking.
I think even the people who vote for him do so with clothes pegs on their nose.
I've yet to meet an actual Sadiq Khan VOTER - as in someone who openly and avowedly says "Oh yes I'm voting for him". Most people say Meh, what a boring jerk. The full-on haters really hate him. A small minority say "Oh well he';s not great but I might have to"
Yet he's apparently coasting to victory again
I am sure I live in something of an ethnic bubble, more white than most of London, but that bubble is politically diverse from UKIP Brexiteers to plenty of lefties (of all classes)
I cannot find an enthusiastic Khan voter. He is eminently beatable and it is pathetic that the Tories have not found anyone to do it
OTOH the Conservative candidate is actually mad. The previous one was very poor as well. An election is a competitive event. You don't have to meet some objective standard. You just need to be better than the other guy. On that basis Khan should rightly sail to victory.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Looking at Wilko's annual report (From 2022), it appears the Directors' confidence in being able to "secure such financing" in a "plausible downside scenario" was misplaced.
Green activists bring their ladders and unfurl a big black cloth over the prime minister's house. A while back, they occupied London bridges.
Funny how security didn't see them coming or stop them, Funny how e.g. striking coalminers or nurses have never been allowed to do something like this.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
Rereading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I'm struck just how anti-commerce (not even plain uncommercial) tended to be the culture of British science, pre-WWII. And of course after WWII we had no money.
Arguably that explains much about our economy today.
It still is.
Look at the dickish reactions to Rishi saying we need to be a tiny bit better at Maths.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
That's all well and good, but there is a risk of feeding a sense of entitlement that then refuses to accept any changes that might entail any reduction in living standards for anyone. Technology can't do everything, and it is very likely that some aspects of our lives will indeed have to change in order to be able to achieve sustainability. For example, it is hard to see how the current level of commercial flights can exist in a net-zero world. If we pretend that this is not the case, then it won't be a surprise if democratic support is lacking when change becomes unavoidable.
Realistically, people won't accept a significant reduction in living standards until/unless we get to the point where the alternative is clearly, undeniably and imminently much worse. If the Netherlands disappears under water and so do Londoners' East Anglian bolt holes then that might change minds.
We'll obviously miss the net zero targets, absent either the above (by which time it's a bit late anyway) or technological advances getting us there (which I agree, is wishful thinking). Otherwise, frankly, I think Pagan is right and the required change cannot be delivered in a democracy in time. We all have our own more urgent priorities (I might cycle to work, but the family car is a large diesel as we can't afford the purchase price of an euivalent EV; I haven't flown, except for work*, in the last six years, but I'd take a flight, probably, if much cheaper than train/boat, which it often is).
But, each reduction does help. That's why it's worth doing the things that we can do that can be sold to be public, even if we can't take the drastic action that probably is needed.
*whose policy prefers greener options but only within certain cost limits, which generally make flying unavoidable for overseas visits - although I did manage to take the train to Paris
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
There is a positive case for mitigation, particularly in the UK. Our economy could take advantage given our current reliance on imported ICE cars and our wind energy potential. The Environmental Kuznets Curve can be flattened for other countries if we lead the way embracing new green technologies.
On adaptation - this is a simple CBA. We need to starting thinking about flooding, heatwaves etc now before it's too late.
Oh and I am assuming here for all real world applications CBA is used in the Yoof sense of the acronym.
It's the "Yoof" who will have to clean up the mess. And it's HMG who are laying this out, including in the National Risk Register published today.
There is a distinct generational divide in concern over this. Don't lecture those of us who will be still be around in 2050.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
That's all well and good, but there is a risk of feeding a sense of entitlement that then refuses to accept any changes that might entail any reduction in living standards for anyone. Technology can't do everything, and it is very likely that some aspects of our lives will indeed have to change in order to be able to achieve sustainability. For example, it is hard to see how the current level of commercial flights can exist in a net-zero world. If we pretend that this is not the case, then it won't be a surprise if democratic support is lacking when change becomes unavoidable.
Realistically, people won't accept a significant reduction in living standards until/unless we get to the point where the alternative is clearly, undeniably and imminently much worse. If the Netherlands disappears under water and so do Londoners' East Anglian bolt holes then that might change minds.
We'll obviously miss the net zero targets, absent either the above (by which time it's a bit late anyway) or technological advances getting us there (which I agree, is wishful thinking). Otherwise, frankly, I think Pagan is right and the required change cannot be delivered in a democracy in time. We all have our own more urgent priorities (I might cycle to work, but the family car is a large diesel as we can't afford the purchase price of an euivalent EV; I haven't flown, except for work*, in the last six years, but I'd take a flight, probably, if much cheaper than train/boat, which it often is).
But, each reduction does help. That's why it's worth doing the things that we can do that can be sold to be public, even if we can't take the drastic action that probably is needed.
*whose policy prefers greener options but only within certain cost limits, which generally make flying unavoidable for overseas visits - although I did manage to take the train to Paris
From the pinot of view of performative environmentalism maybe it wasn't a great idea to fly 4500 British scouts to endure heat exhaustion in South Korea when Brownsea Island is not, yet, under water.
Rereading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I'm struck just how anti-commerce (not even plain uncommercial) tended to be the culture of British science, pre-WWII. And of course after WWII we had no money.
Arguably that explains much about our economy today.
It still is.
Look at the dickish reactions to Rishi saying we need to be a tiny bit better at Maths.
It's interesting how that changed in the US. The American scientists were every bit as arrogant about not being interested in practical considerations.
See Slotin and the screwdriver. He was doing this at the time that the Godiva was ready to be used - remote control in a separate canyon from the control room. But sneering at the DuPont engineers was mandatory.
and Thanet P is a huge monument to the glory of the British Empire at the entrance to the Province, er, Motherland?
They do seem rather confident the trains will always still run through the currently soggy wetlands on the various lines out of the station.
I don't care about the service NOW, I just want to admire the beauty of this structure - "built for the future and many generations to come"
How true. Look at it. This is the Taj Mahal of Parkways, the Hoover Dam of Errr, the Great Pyramid of Prison Loading Bays inexplicably turned into "stations"
I was thinking about the future trains. Some of those marshlands are only metres above sea level-ish.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
The fact that this transparently obvious point needs to be made again and again to those who agitate for extreme measures that will impact people's economic conditions is one of the more curious elements of the whole climate debate*.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
There is a positive case for mitigation, particularly in the UK. Our economy could take advantage given our current reliance on imported ICE cars and our wind energy potential. The Environmental Kuznets Curve can be flattened for other countries if we lead the way embracing new green technologies.
On adaptation - this is a simple CBA. We need to starting thinking about flooding, heatwaves etc now before it's too late.
Oh and I am assuming here for all real world applications CBA is used in the Yoof sense of the acronym.
It's the "Yoof" who will have to clean up the mess. And it's HMG who are laying this out, including in the National Risk Register published today.
There is a distinct generational divide in concern over this. Don't lecture those of us who will be still be around in 2050.
Some of us are not very likely to be around then - but are worried as well.
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
Rereading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I'm struck just how anti-commerce (not even plain uncommercial) tended to be the culture of British science, pre-WWII. And of course after WWII we had no money.
Arguably that explains much about our economy today.
It still is.
Look at the dickish reactions to Rishi saying we need to be a tiny bit better at Maths.
Mr Sunak, of course, is not anti-commerce he is merely anti-reality. The example of his witterings on maths teaching are a fine example. How did he intend to deliver it? He didn't - the aim was the headline not any actual practical measure. That is why he is constantly making speeches but delivers absolutely NOTHING on almost every front.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
That's all well and good, but there is a risk of feeding a sense of entitlement that then refuses to accept any changes that might entail any reduction in living standards for anyone. Technology can't do everything, and it is very likely that some aspects of our lives will indeed have to change in order to be able to achieve sustainability. For example, it is hard to see how the current level of commercial flights can exist in a net-zero world. If we pretend that this is not the case, then it won't be a surprise if democratic support is lacking when change becomes unavoidable.
Realistically, people won't accept a significant reduction in living standards until/unless we get to the point where the alternative is clearly, undeniably and imminently much worse. If the Netherlands disappears under water and so do Londoners' East Anglian bolt holes then that might change minds.
We'll obviously miss the net zero targets, absent either the above (by which time it's a bit late anyway) or technological advances getting us there (which I agree, is wishful thinking). Otherwise, frankly, I think Pagan is right and the required change cannot be delivered in a democracy in time. We all have our own more urgent priorities (I might cycle to work, but the family car is a large diesel as we can't afford the purchase price of an euivalent EV; I haven't flown, except for work*, in the last six years, but I'd take a flight, probably, if much cheaper than train/boat, which it often is).
But, each reduction does help. That's why it's worth doing the things that we can do that can be sold to be public, even if we can't take the drastic action that probably is needed.
*whose policy prefers greener options but only within certain cost limits, which generally make flying unavoidable for overseas visits - although I did manage to take the train to Paris
From the pinot of view of performative environmentalism maybe it wasn't a great idea to fly 4500 British scouts to endure heat exhaustion in South Korea when Brownsea Island is not, yet, under water.
Rereading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I'm struck just how anti-commerce (not even plain uncommercial) tended to be the culture of British science, pre-WWII. And of course after WWII we had no money.
Arguably that explains much about our economy today.
It still is.
Look at the dickish reactions to Rishi saying we need to be a tiny bit better at Maths.
Mr Sunak, of course, is not anti-commerce he is merely anti-reality. The example of his witterings on maths teaching are a fine example. How did he intend to deliver it? He didn't - the aim was the headline not any actual practical measure. That is why he is constantly making speeches but delivers absolutely NOTHING on almost every front.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
How will we know when that moment arrives. According to the papers we are there now. Or are we not there yet?
It's when it's so hot that you have to take your top hat off
Rereading The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I'm struck just how anti-commerce (not even plain uncommercial) tended to be the culture of British science, pre-WWII. And of course after WWII we had no money.
Arguably that explains much about our economy today.
It still is.
Look at the dickish reactions to Rishi saying we need to be a tiny bit better at Maths.
Mr Sunak, of course, is not anti-commerce he is merely anti-reality. The example of his witterings on maths teaching are a fine example. How did he intend to deliver it? He didn't - the aim was the headline not any actual practical measure. That is why he is constantly making speeches but delivers absolutely NOTHING on almost every front.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
How will we know when that moment arrives. According to the papers we are there now. Or are we not there yet?
It's when it's so hot that you have to take your top hat off
Oh god. That said, they let people remove their coats last year at Ascot so that is an indicator. Not this year, though, so have we entered a period of global cooling?
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Living in the south west I expect climate change to be rather pleasant by 2050
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
But also support the public sector as needed. Like she did with the BAS work on the ozone hole.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
What were you reading ??
probably 120 days of sodom I am told it can have that effect
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
But also support the public sector as needed. Like she did with the BAS work on the ozone hole.
My mum, when she still had most of her marbles (at least outwardly) was a climate change denier. One of her debating points was that these things are overblown and just go away by themselves, choice example being the ozone layer "there was all that fuss and you don't hear about it now, do you?", or something like that.
I doubt she was alone. The trouble with successfully tackling something (like the Y2K issues) is that people believe that it was never an issue. If we do enough to avoid the worst of climate change, there will be many people making similar arguments, I'm sure.
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
But also support the public sector as needed. Like she did with the BAS work on the ozone hole.
Good point. Once again, we forget the gap between Actual Maggie and the Storybook Maggie that the Johnson/Truss/Sunak generation think they are cosplaying.
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
But also support the public sector as needed. Like she did with the BAS work on the ozone hole.
Good point. Once again, we forget the gap between Actual Maggie and the Storybook Maggie that the Johnson/Truss/Sunak generation think they are cosplaying.
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
Is it because you are chatting them up?
I restrict myself to flints and observations
They really don’t smile. You can see it Croatia or Poland, Romania or Slovakia, tho the intensity of the glumness varies. Montenegrins seem a bit cheerier; Serbians less
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
Russian spies posed as Microsoft tech support in bid to hack government departments ... A series of “highly targeted social engineering attacks” saw Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) try to break into around 40 organisations worldwide, including governments.
The SVR’s targets included government departments, NGOs, charities and companies from the IT services, technology, manufacturing, and media sectors, Microsoft said.
The hackers used Microsoft Teams, a widely used business chat tool, to try and tempt their targets into clicking malicious links.
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
Comments
I’ve written many times before about the consistency of the panel, and these findings bear the point out yet again. We received just under 700 responses to this latest survey, compared to about 990 in 2020 and some 850 in 2021.
Just look at the attrition rate. Death and dementia will do that to some demographics.
I've taken to printing and carrying stickers that basically say "please don't park on the pavement. thanks." and slapping them on offender's windscreens. That the stickers are of a type that leaves difficult to clean adhesive residue behind is merely a coincidence...
Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice
South Africa v Netherlands
France v Morocco
England v Nigeria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup#Knockout_stage
Outside London (and maybe Scotland if it is in yet) that's not enforcible by Highway Authorities as there is no marking demonstrating illegal parking, but in most places police would enforce on the particular obstruction because it is positively dangerous in preventing access. Usually they refuse to do so in less clear-cut cases.
There are defensible grey area informal and activist options like a YPLAC sticker or "oh dear I didn't notice I scratched that car door with my wheelchair / pram / pedal squeezing through". Or outright vandalism, which cannot be condoned.
But I think *something* changed on 1st August this year, as Reach has been covering something. Don't know more yet - it may be that LHAs can now get London style powers if they apply to the Minister, and he says yes.
The Heavy Lorry levy has also come back in after COVID-suspension and is supposed to be raising £1.5 bn for Rishi.
*to those who advocate extreme action: is debate allowed or are we in a "no debate" situation here.
It is not Conservative members but a panel who are made up as in trhe following quote from the report::
"I’ve written many times before about the consistency of the panel, and these findings bear the point out yet again. We received just under 700 responses to this latest survey, compared to about 990 in 2020 and some 850 in 2021"
The responders are going to be predominately negative, because they will have the greater psychological incentive to respond. Those who are content with things will bother less.
It also could be said that the actual numbers, not the percentage, registering negatively now are less than in 2020!
We weren't impressed with Princess Street, however, which seems to be going the same way as Oxford Street.
The Elements of Offense in the Trump January 6 Indictment
DOJ doesn't have to prove Trump believed he lost. They have to prove he lied in attempt to thwart Electoral College Act.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1687073948322652161
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/richborough-roman-fort-and-amphitheatre/history-and-stories/history/
and Thanet P is a huge monument to the glory of the British Empire at the entrance to the Province, er, Motherland?
They do seem rather confident the trains will always still run through the currently soggy wetlands on the various lines out of the station.
On adaptation - this is a simple CBA. We need to starting thinking about flooding, heatwaves etc now before it's too late.
How true. Look at it. This is the Taj Mahal of Parkways, the Hoover Dam of Errr, the Great Pyramid of Prison Loading Bays inexplicably turned into "stations"
"A black-and-white card stated: "Do you drive a Jeep, 4X4 or Range Rover in the city? You could be entitled to free penis enlargement therapy on the NHS." There were images of the models and a number which goes to voicemail also on the card."
Far from being angry, Mr Chester, who describes himself as environmentally conscious, said he understood the mystery fly-poster's view and was grateful no damage was done. The 46-year-old said: "I'm all for people having an opinion and being allowed to protest.
"The oceans are rising, climate change is worrying, we have to be aware but it needs to go higher up the chain. Is the government doing enough ? They didn't cause any damage to the car. If there was damage to the car, it would have been a different scenario."
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/driver-left-stunned-penis-enlargement-8592524
It is a harmless photo op and the first reaction of a poster is to go into a rant about the candidate not commenting on the evils of pavement parking. Get a grip
Buy all the shops on a high street. Knock through. A single shop - coffee shop, charity shop and estate agent all in one.
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places
- More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances
- Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc)
- EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
So, in short, the master plan is:
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster
2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S
3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3
4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
It's a typical piece in which the author demonstrates some literary skill in joining stuff together from one paragraph to the next, but the actual stuff that he joins together is any old bollocks he found on a rubbish dump somewhere, and while there's limited cohesion there's no coherence. There are whole books like this nowadays, e.g. by Naomi Klein, and I would say by Paul Mason too if he had some skill at joining stuff together.
"Meritocracy" is a ghastly word - perhaps chosen by Michael Young for that very reason - but the concept is worse, possibly even worse than "democracy". Some "deserve" to rule for some reason - really? "Meritocracy" and "woke" are two ideas that the left cannot get a handle on, leaving the right to have much more room for manoeuvre. (And that's bad.)
They demand an end to personal transportation for one
They demand we all go vegan for two
You know that quote about how a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in? Quite a few of our leaders (loosely defined) would rather cut the tree down so they can sell the wood and not have to deal with the leaves each autumn.
The most compelling argument for recycling, for example, comes from works such as Porter's Economics of Waste. Using the idea of landfill exhaustion (out of date but provides, as he says, a simple theory) he examines the economics of recycling involving units of production, effort, and consumption when considering recycling in a two-year model.
Perfectly rational and involves recycling to maximise consumption per unit of effort.
But give me a break about the Lincolnshire becoming uninhabitable (we can only hope), etc.
Climate change is going to happen just accept it.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
[1] https://www.sportsdirect.com/luggage/backpacks-and-rucksacks
[2] https://www.millets.co.uk/equipment/rucksacks-bags/
A while back, they occupied London bridges.
Funny how security didn't see them coming or stop them,
Funny how e.g. striking coalminers or nurses have never been allowed to do something like this.
Greenpeace = fake.
Green = fake.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
Look at the dickish reactions to Rishi saying we need to be a tiny bit better at Maths.
We'll obviously miss the net zero targets, absent either the above (by which time it's a bit late anyway) or technological advances getting us there (which I agree, is wishful thinking). Otherwise, frankly, I think Pagan is right and the required change cannot be delivered in a democracy in time. We all have our own more urgent priorities (I might cycle to work, but the family car is a large diesel as we can't afford the purchase price of an euivalent EV; I haven't flown, except for work*, in the last six years, but I'd take a flight, probably, if much cheaper than train/boat, which it often is).
But, each reduction does help. That's why it's worth doing the things that we can do that can be sold to be public, even if we can't take the drastic action that probably is needed.
*whose policy prefers greener options but only within certain cost limits, which generally make flying unavoidable for overseas visits - although I did manage to take the train to Paris
There is a distinct generational divide in concern over this. Don't lecture those of us who will be still be around in 2050.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66392355
See Slotin and the screwdriver. He was doing this at the time that the Godiva was ready to be used - remote control in a separate canyon from the control room. But sneering at the DuPont engineers was mandatory.
Politics doesn't work like that.
This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
A lot of highly leveraged businesses will have to restructure higher interest rates sticking around.
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all.
2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery.
3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
I doubt she was alone. The trouble with successfully tackling something (like the Y2K issues) is that people believe that it was never an issue. If we do enough to avoid the worst of climate change, there will be many people making similar arguments, I'm sure.
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
They really don’t smile. You can see it Croatia or Poland, Romania or Slovakia, tho the intensity of
the glumness varies. Montenegrins seem a bit cheerier; Serbians less
...
A series of “highly targeted social engineering attacks” saw Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) try to break into around 40 organisations worldwide, including governments.
The SVR’s targets included government departments, NGOs, charities and companies from the IT services, technology, manufacturing, and media sectors, Microsoft said.
The hackers used Microsoft Teams, a widely used business chat tool, to try and tempt their targets into clicking malicious links.
Microsoft said: “The target user may receive a Microsoft Teams message request from an external user masquerading as a technical support or security team.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/03/russian-spies-posed-microsoft-teams-tech-support-hack/ (£££)
Stay safe, and update your cybersecurity precautions.
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?