This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
I thought it wouldn't be long before the Philistines and the Brexiteers had their say
Brexit Party plus Tories plus UKIP are on 49%, Labour plus Greens plus LDs plus CUK on 47%.
That is the same arithmetic as I did. Makes one wonder about all this polling showing remain ahead doesn't it?
Don't forget the SNP and Plaid. A more realistic way of looking at the deal is: * Brexit deal - 37% * Brexit no deal - 34% * Remain - 25% (+whatever the SNP and PC get) Where do the deal votes go if the only option is one of the other two? * Labour presumably breaks Remain * Tory presumably breaks No Deal A country divided
A country divided (and bored stupid) we undoubtedly are. I also agree that there would be a tendency in the major parties in the manner you indicate. I just struggle to see a high 50%+ number for remain. It very much seems to depend on how you ask the question.
Yep - what I see most of all is that a significant minority really want to leave the EU at any cost and a smaller, but still significant, minority really don't. Put together, though, they are a majority. So we are stuck with this for years to come.
What was it David Cameron said about the choice between him and Ed Miliband?
That is just too awful to contemplate. I very much hope that once we reach a resolution, any resolution, it will slip back down the list of issues to where it belongs. I suspect myself that the majority who support one side or the other just have more important things to think about. The loons on both sides will bang on no doubt but we don't have to pay attention to them.
The tyre hitting the road is a very long drawn out and distracting set of negotiations, not just with the EU, to concede as little as possible so that the amount things get worse is kept to the least possible. It's possible people will say, never mind I'll accept anything you come up with, or they will happily cancel. Abesent that, the EU will be the dominating feature for the next decades.
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
Right of non violent protest is a fundamental part of democracy. It is a form of consciousness raising to bring attention to a minority viewpoint, thereby facilitating change. The world has become too complacement about climate change.
There is surely a distinction between protesting and forcibly disrupting society at the cost and inconvenience of other citizens.
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
I am slightly less optomistic. There is a heck of a lot of greenwash, with individuals and companies believing they have done their bit by recycling a few bits of plastic. To make a real impact on conserving our lovely planet we need to look at the inherent destructiveness and wastefulness of consumer society.
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
What do these climate hippies want ?
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Climate will change irrespective of levels of CO2. Sorry it isn’t us controlling the planet.
The graphs the other day showed the oscillations in climate getting more divergent over the past 2 million years (earlier record are not supported by ice cores). We as a species have been affecting the climate what - 10,000 years, tops?
Taking steps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surely prudent. But will it make a jot of difference? Probably not. The best shot we have at changing climate is a single-species mass extinction event - for homo sapiens.
If there is a designated protest space, it gets assimilated into the system of "how things work". If your argument is "how things work doesn't work" then how can you protest in the designated protest space? Yes, it may get a lot of people for the cause, but that isn't what protest is about. Protest is about becoming grit in the mill of daily life so that the system has to change either to remove you or to accommodate your position. For something as eminently reasonable as dealing with climate change, having the iron fist of the police state smash a protesting granny looks bad, so accommodation is what these people want.
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
No, I agree, I would not call them fascists. Only fascists should be called that.
But regarding achieving real change, I think what would be more effective would be for Caroline Lucas to do what Nigel Farage did. Take a big single issue (climate change in this case) and use it to drive her Party right the way up the polls, scaring the life out of the mainstream parties in the process, until they cave in and accede to her demands.
Talk ONLY and RELENTLESSLY about that one issue. Do NOT get sidetracked onto other (secondary) topics.
So as Nigel was EU EU EU, Caroline should be Climate, Climate, Climate.
She is an excellent politician, and I think it would work.
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
I mean, the repressive regime is one that is needlessly destroying the chance of continual human civilisation on this planet. The current system of human existence will lead to the destruction of it, potentially in my lifetime. That is the repression.
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
What do these climate hippies want ?
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
There is an interesting correlation between climate change denialism and Brexitism.
Having a party on the Ballot paper called the Brexit party is actually better than having a party called UKIP because it is simpler to understand. I can actually envisage the Tory party coming further down the list than currently shown.
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
I mean, the repressive regime is one that is needlessly destroying the chance of continual human civilisation on this planet. The current system of human existence will lead to the destruction of it, potentially in my lifetime. That is the repression.
I get that strong talk is needed when there is a crisis, but when I see stuff like this it just makes me want to give up even trying.
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
What do these climate hippies want ?
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
There is an interesting correlation between climate change denialism and Brexitism.
I'd guess you are right there but what drives that correlation?
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
Mistake to poo poo the hard evidence of man-made climate change.
People do that - poo poo it - because they do not want to accept it.
It is interesting how the Farage party are clearly picking up the pissed off Leave vote, but the Lib Dems on their specialist subject still can't get anything going from pissed off Remain vote.
Yep, putting aside the personalities or policies Farage is simply very good at politics, whereas the Lib Dems are basically a load of shite.
We should be treating these ecofascists the same way as any other group that seeks to impose its policy agenda by force. Media companies should not be inviting them onto to prime-time shows to explain their case, any more than they would give Yaxley-Lennon a nice, soft, studio interview.
If he "cares so deeply", I trust he will not be breeding.....
What's the betting he has a lovely trust fund that means he doesn't have to have a proper job?
There is an alternative history where posh twats with lovely trust funds did not take over the Conservative Party and accidentally commit us to Brexit.
Yeah, goddamn it, don't people know that necessary radical change is achievable by doing what you're told and not rocking the boat. I mean, look at all movements for radical change in history: women got the vote by making their men sandwiches, slavery was abolished only because of the grace of white people and not at all due to bloody rebellions and wars, and Indian independence was completely about that one guy and his hunger strike, not a strategy of planned disobedience and an attempt at stalling the economy of the empire that controlled them. Not rocking the boat, makes things happen.
You know, this post is very funny.
Because although it's intended to be sarcastic, it's actually correct.
Women got the vote through their actions in wartime - there is a case to be made it was delayed because senior politicians in particular in the Liberal party thought anyone as nutty as the Suffragettes should be kept as far as possible from the ballot box; Slavery was ultimately abolished first because a series of governments found banning it a useful form of economic warfare (the USA being a dazzling exception) and later because with industrialisation it was in any case an increasingly ineffectual way of running an economy; India was granted independence at the time it was in the way it was for a complex variety of reasons but most of them were to do with Britain's economic weakness (I think there is confusion over Gandhi's hunger strikes and the reasons for them).
So no - protests don't usually work.
And certainly a bunch of posh fascists with the intellectual capacity of a Corbyn and the self-importance of a Johnson are not going to convince anyone by behaving like the retarded twats they undoubtedly are.
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
I mean, the repressive regime is one that is needlessly destroying the chance of continual human civilisation on this planet. The current system of human existence will lead to the destruction of it, potentially in my lifetime. That is the repression.
Trying to circumvent democracy is not the answer. BTW by any objective measurement human material well-being has never been higher. There are environmental challenges but the "imminent end of civilisation unless we act now" is irrational hysteria in my opinion.
I wouldn't trust a free VPN....at the very least they sell your info.
However, for £30 a year you can get a trusted no-log one, and in this day and age you are an idiot to access any wifi outside your own home without using one.
I see the purchase / use of a VPN in the same way as buying anti-virus / firewall software.
Do you have a recommendation?
Personally, I have used Private Internet Access for the past 5 years and always had a solid experience, but back when I picked them there was a lot less competition for the retail user. With them you can have up to 5 devices connected at the same time under one subscription.
However, I believe they have recently raised their prices quite considerably (but I have a multi-year package with them so I haven't been affected).
I see a lot of adverts for NordVPN, IpVanish, ExpressVPN, but I honestly don't know how good they are.
ExpressVPN worked best for me amongst several options to get through the Great Firewall of China. The authorities are playing a not always very energetic cat and mouse game with VPN suppliers. They kind of know access to foreign websites is necessary. I use VPN because the Firewall slows internet access to a crawl for any website not on the Government whitelist. The sites I am accessing aren't necessarily controversial. And the Chinese government really hates Google. Google Search, Google Maps,Youtube and I think GMail are all banned.
I have used Express VPN in China - it worked well most of them time and is also good for watching UK-only BBC channels when abroad. Given that VPNs are so easy to use and widely available there seems to be little point in the government trying to restrict internet access - all it will achieve is a boost for VPN suppliers, soon everyone will have one, just as all foreigners do in China.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Climate will change irrespective of levels of CO2. Sorry it isn’t us controlling the planet.
The graphs the other day showed the oscillations in climate getting more divergent over the past 2 million years (earlier record are not supported by ice cores). We as a species have been affecting the climate what - 10,000 years, tops?
Taking steps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surely prudent. But will it make a jot of difference? Probably not. The best shot we have at changing climate is a single-species mass extinction event - for homo sapiens.
/EvenGloomierThanToriesMode
Population rise and our impact on the planet is the key change driver for ecosystems. We cannot morally deny other countries from developing. We must encourage education, green(er) power generation, women's equality and healthcare to mitigate population growth and sustainability. Anything else will fail. Calling to restrict UK people to 1 jet trip a year is just stupid and will be counter productive.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Like Robert Smithson, I think that in general, humans are pretty good at sorting out environmental problems, but they need to have the money to do so (people who burn forests for charcoal are usually desperately poor) and they need to be actual problems before people will act.
And, as Cyclefree put it, if you really do want to do your bit, manage a proper garden at your home.
Having a party on the Ballot paper called the Brexit party is actually better than having a party called UKIP because it is simpler to understand. I can actually envisage the Tory party coming further down the list than currently shown.
The real hoot would be the Brexit Party getting 52%......
I wouldn't trust a free VPN....at the very least they sell your info.
However, for £30 a year you can get a trusted no-log one, and in this day and age you are an idiot to access any wifi outside your own home without using one.
I see the purchase / use of a VPN in the same way as buying anti-virus / firewall software.
Do you have a recommendation?
Personally, I have used Private Internet Access for the past 5 years and always had a solid experience, but back when I picked them there was a lot less competition for the retail user. With them you can have up to 5 devices connected at the same time under one subscription.
However, I believe they have recently raised their prices quite considerably (but I have a multi-year package with them so I haven't been affected).
I see a lot of adverts for NordVPN, IpVanish, ExpressVPN, but I honestly don't know how good they are.
ExpressVPN worked best for me amongst several options to get through the Great Firewall of China. The authorities are playing a not always very energetic cat and mouse game with VPN suppliers. They kind of know access to foreign websites is necessary. I use VPN because the Firewall slows internet access to a crawl for any website not on the Government whitelist. The sites I am accessing aren't necessarily controversial. And the Chinese government really hates Google. Google Search, Google Maps,Youtube and I think GMail are all banned.
I have used Express VPN in China - it worked well most of them time and is also good for watching UK-only BBC channels when abroad. Given that VPNs are so easy to use and widely available there seems to be little point in the government trying to restrict internet access - all it will achieve is a boost for VPN suppliers, soon everyone will have one, just as all foreigners do in China.
My teenagers taught me how to use VPNs years ago. This government is losing it.
Having a party on the Ballot paper called the Brexit party is actually better than having a party called UKIP because it is simpler to understand. I can actually envisage the Tory party coming further down the list than currently shown.
The real hoot would be the Brexit Party getting 52%......
Having a party on the Ballot paper called the Brexit party is actually better than having a party called UKIP because it is simpler to understand. I can actually envisage the Tory party coming further down the list than currently shown.
The real hoot would be the Brexit Party getting 52%......
Well, if there were 40 MEPs lined up behind Farage that would be a definite and very rapid route to the EU suddenly forcing a No Deal exit...
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
I mean, the repressive regime is one that is needlessly destroying the chance of continual human civilisation on this planet. The current system of human existence will lead to the destruction of it, potentially in my lifetime. That is the repression.
Trying to circumvent democracy is not the answer. BTW by any objective measurement human material well-being has never been higher. There are environmental challenges but the "imminent end of civilisation unless we act now" is irrational hysteria in my opinion.
I believe the environmental challenges we face are real and radical actions of some kind are probably necessary. However I also cannot forget that the 10 year old videos I watched in school in the 90s essentially said there would be no rainforests left by now.
So protestors being disruptive to get focus on the agenda I'm mostly fine with as an initial thing unless exceptionally twatish and they need to do more than childish attention seeking. But what next? What if as is always the case progress is not made as quickly as they want and what if it is not as bad as they say? How they react to that will be very interesting
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Like Robert Smithson, I think that in general, humans are pretty good at sorting out environmental problems, but they need to have the money to do so (people who burn forests for charcoal are usually desperately poor) and they need to be actual problems before people will act.
And, as Cyclefree put it, if you really do want to do your bit, manage a proper garden at your home.
I must run the most eco friendly garden in the world. No pesticides, lovely shrubs, all my own compost, wild flowers growing freely, and grass that I cut infrequently.
Admittedly that's because I'm too lazy, er, busy to do anything else. But in fairness I did deliberately design it that way when I built it three years ago.
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Like Robert Smithson, I think that in general, humans are pretty good at sorting out environmental problems, but they need to have the money to do so (people who burn forests for charcoal are usually desperately poor) and they need to be actual problems before people will act.
And, as Cyclefree put it, if you really do want to do your bit, manage a proper garden at your home.
Why can’t African countries just have massive solar panels everywhere and sell the electricity generated/become industrial powerhouses?
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Climate will change irrespective of levels of CO2. Sorry it isn’t us controlling the planet.
The graphs the other day showed the oscillations in climate getting more divergent over the past 2 million years (earlier record are not supported by ice cores). We as a species have been affecting the climate what - 10,000 years, tops?
Taking steps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surely prudent. But will it make a jot of difference? Probably not. The best shot we have at changing climate is a single-species mass extinction event - for homo sapiens.
/EvenGloomierThanToriesMode
The level of CO2 we reach will determine which ice sheets will survive, if any, and how many metres of sea level rise future generations experience.
But it isn't likely to happen fast enough that we have to worry about the Thames Barrier being overwhelmed in our lifetime so no-one gives a monkey.
And that's why protestors are taking more radical action.
On topic, Dan Hannan's ConHome article encouraging votes for the Tory MEPs seems to have met with a less than enthusiastic response from CH readers. The comments underneath would do MailOnline proud.
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
Mistake to poo poo the hard evidence of man-made climate change.
People do that - poo poo it - because they do not want to accept it.
Here are some interesting graphs from those notorious eco-hippies at Bloomberg, with more detail in the link:
Real conservatives who want to maintain our way of life should take this seriously, as David Cameron did. Once Bangladesh is underwater, and Sub-saharan africa is in permanent drought is a bit too late. You think there are too many refugees already? well imagine that...
Where are the posts praising shrewd ol’ Farage for having a grand at 3/1??!
A big unknown has to be turnout, more particularly differential turnout across the parties.
IMO a lot depends on a) how well the Brexit and Remain movemeents can motivate their vote and b) whether Labour mebrace a 2nd vote.
The poll also asked the question what would happen if Labour supported a 2nd ref, and the numbers barely moved.
What did move the needle was the option of Labour's actual apparent policy - Brexit with the Customs Union. That gave the Brexit Party a 10% lead, with Labour on 15%, the same as the Tories and the Lib Dems.
I think it was only two years ago that we were talking about the imminent collapse of the Labour Party, and a long period of Tory hegemony. Funny old world, indeed!
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Like Robert Smithson, I think that in general, humans are pretty good at sorting out environmental problems, but they need to have the money to do so (people who burn forests for charcoal are usually desperately poor) and they need to be actual problems before people will act.
And, as Cyclefree put it, if you really do want to do your bit, manage a proper garden at your home.
Why can’t African countries just have massive solar panels everywhere and sell the electricity generated/become industrial powerhouses?
Transferring electricity over long distances is inefficient due to transmission losses. That's why UK nuclear power plants were distributed round the country, not built at the north of Scotland.
Even if cable technology improved, your main market for African power would be Europe - so cables would run through that politically reliable area of North Africa where you would be able to guarantee stability of supply. Oh hold on.
Solar will help Africa - they could process their resources themselves rather than exporting raw materials. But what they really need is stability of supply. Nigeria could be an economic World power if they can fix their electricity and utilities.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Like Robert Smithson, I think that in general, humans are pretty good at sorting out environmental problems, but they need to have the money to do so (people who burn forests for charcoal are usually desperately poor) and they need to be actual problems before people will act.
And, as Cyclefree put it, if you really do want to do your bit, manage a proper garden at your home.
I must run the most eco friendly garden in the world. No pesticides, lovely shrubs, all my own compost, wild flowers growing freely, and grass that I cut infrequently.
Admittedly that's because I'm too lazy, er, busy to do anything else. But in fairness I did deliberately design it that way when I built it three years ago.
The house down the road from me was empty for three years, the owner having died and it took years to sort out his estate, during which time the garden turned to a wilderness of brambles and weeds. When the house finally appeared on the estate agent's website the blurb read: "The garden has been managed in a natural way to maximise its appeal to wildlife".
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
I mean, the repressive regime is one that is needlessly destroying the chance of continual human civilisation on this planet. The current system of human existence will lead to the destruction of it, potentially in my lifetime. That is the repression.
Trying to circumvent democracy is not the answer. BTW by any objective measurement human material well-being has never been higher. There are environmental challenges but the "imminent end of civilisation unless we act now" is irrational hysteria in my opinion.
I believe the environmental challenges we face are real and radical actions of some kind are probably necessary. However I also cannot forget that the 10 year old videos I watched in school in the 90s essentially said there would be no rainforests left by now.
So protestors being disruptive to get focus on the agenda I'm mostly fine with as an initial thing unless exceptionally twatish and they need to do more than childish attention seeking. But what next? What if as is always the case progress is not made as quickly as they want and what if it is not as bad as they say? How they react to that will be very interesting
Potholer54 has a good video about how projections of possible outcomes a) need to be scientifically rigorous and b) need to be compared like for like. For instance, your science classes may have said "without changes to the current system there would be no rain-forests left by now" and the system changed to prevent that from happening. Doesn't mean the projections were wrong, just that people looked at those projections and aimed to stop that.
The scientific consensus is we have 10 years to make meaningful change or the feedback cycle will lead to unavoidable and cataclysmic changes. I would like to avoid that. If we have 20 years, what is the problem with trying to do it in 10? The Cost/Benefit is "if we do this thing, life may be sustainable" versus "if we don't do this thing, human civilisation may end". I understand that literal fascists also claim everything is a civilisational threat, but in this case the data is on our side.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Climate will change irrespective of levels of CO2. Sorry it isn’t us controlling the planet.
The graphs the other day showed the oscillations in climate getting more divergent over the past 2 million years (earlier record are not supported by ice cores). We as a species have been affecting the climate what - 10,000 years, tops?
Taking steps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surely prudent. But will it make a jot of difference? Probably not. The best shot we have at changing climate is a single-species mass extinction event - for homo sapiens.
/EvenGloomierThanToriesMode
The level of CO2 we reach will determine which ice sheets will survive, if any, and how many metres of sea level rise future generations experience.
But it isn't likely to happen fast enough that we have to worry about the Thames Barrier being overwhelmed in our lifetime so no-one gives a monkey.
And that's why protestors are taking more radical action.
Plainly, people do give a monkey's. That's why the UK's carbon emissions are falling.
What people don't want is to destroy a system which generates the highest ever standard of living.
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
What do these climate hippies want ?
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
There is an interesting correlation between climate change denialism and Brexitism.
I'd guess you are right there but what drives that correlation?
The main parties need to make more effort to remind voters of Farage's close links with Trump.That could yet prove toxic for him.
The main parties need to campaign seriously! Only Farage has started, so has first mover advantage. Other parties need to get the locals out of the way first.
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
What do these climate hippies want ?
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
There is an interesting correlation between climate change denialism and Brexitism.
I'd guess you are right there but what drives that correlation?
I think it was only two years ago that we were talking about the imminent collapse of the Labour Party, and a long period of Tory hegemony. Funny old world, indeed!
The question for the next GE is how prominent is Brexit going to be?
When in the middle of a storm it's easy to lose perspective. It's worth remembering back to last July when Boris and Davis resigned after "Chequers" - the polls changed very quickly and Lab took a clear lead as Con Brexiteers were up in arms at what TMay had done. Within 4 to 6 weeks the whole thing had been forgotten and Con went back into the lead. I wonder if anyone can now even remember what decision was taken at "Chequers"?
Now of course failing to leave the EU will be remembered much more than Chequers but at the same time the very short duration of that poll blip is a reminder that things can quickly move on.
If we do actually leave the EU (on whatever terms) then I suspect all the detail and wrangling will be quickly forgotten by all except the most obsessive anoraks. The big risk for Con is a GE before Brexit has actually happened - whereas if it has happened they may well be perfectly OK.
I think it was only two years ago that we were talking about the imminent collapse of the Labour Party, and a long period of Tory hegemony. Funny old world, indeed!
The climate change protestors should be in Beijing
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
What do these climate hippies want ?
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
There is an interesting correlation between climate change denialism and Brexitism.
I'd guess you are right there but what drives that correlation?
High blood pressure.
I personally would put it down to a refusal to see the world globally, economically or in terms of wider issues.
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
Mistake to poo poo the hard evidence of man-made climate change.
People do that - poo poo it - because they do not want to accept it.
It is true that "just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you". The human contribution to climate change is a huge topic with a lot of uncertainty and unfortunately a highly polarised ideologically driven discussion. I've gone from completely accepting the "official" viewpoint (apart from advocating a big push for nuclear) to a more sceptical view but I do have a lot of uncertainty.
I believe that the costs of reducing emissions can be confidently estimated (subject to modification for technology changes) whilst the predicted effects of rising temperatures are very speculative. In addition the panic over CO2 emissions arises from mathematical models that are simplifications and have no track record. The "precautionary principle" is no use either as we are almost certainly in an inter-glacial and it could be that bumping up CO2 is counteracting the move to an ice-age.
If the predecessors of the extreme environmentalists had been listened to most of us would not be here or would have short miserable lives toiling on the land.
Here's an interesting question - where will the Tories best region (Outside the Southeast) be ?
The obvious choices are East of England and the South West, but in both the Tories face being squeezed between keen remainers and keen leavers. So I'd plump for East Midlands, where people are more likely to be focused on the potential economic damage and therefore more receptive to the Tories' compromise Brexit.
The question for the next GE is how prominent is Brexit going to be?
When in the middle of a storm it's easy to lose perspective. It's worth remembering back to last July when Boris and Davis resigned after "Chequers" - the polls changed very quickly and Lab took a clear lead as Con Brexiteers were up in arms at what TMay had done. Within 4 to 6 weeks the whole thing had been forgotten and Con went back into the lead. I wonder if anyone can now even remember what decision was taken at "Chequers"?
Now of course failing to leave the EU will be remembered much more than Chequers but at the same time the very short duration of that poll blip is a reminder that things can quickly move on.
If we do actually leave the EU (on whatever terms) then I suspect all the detail and wrangling will be quickly forgotten by all except the most obsessive anoraks. The big risk for Con is a GE before Brexit has actually happened - whereas if it has happened they may well be perfectly OK.
E H H Green and Robert Blake both compared Europe to the Tarriff Reform campaigns of 1880-1932.
I quote from the late John Ramsden's History of the Conservative Party: The Age of Balfour and Baldwin (from memory) about a conversation a journalist had with a Tory activist in the 1950s:
'I went through all the things that were wrong with the National Government - the means Test, the failure to stand up to the dictators, the lack of rearmament, the failure to deal with India, a general drift and lack of clarity. At every stage, he nodded. Then he broke in, with a catch in his voice, 'But don't forget, they gave us the tarriff.' There was a generation of Conservative history in his words.'
Here's an interesting question - where will the Tories best region (Outside the Southeast) be ?
The obvious choices are East of England and the South West, but in both the Tories face being squeezed between keen remainers and keen leavers. So I'd plump for East Midlands, where people are more likely to be focused on the potential economic damage and therefore more receptive to the Tories' compromise Brexit.
Nah, here the Dehondt system favoured them last time round. It is quite possible that the Tories will lose both their EM MEPs.
This is also why I dislike the idea that ecoprotests are somehow similar to "fascists" who want to change things by force (not a comment you made, but something someone down thread said). Doing something about climate change is not equal to being a fascist, and neither are the tactics. These are the tactics of civil rights movements.
Civil rights direct action is justifiable because it is trying to overthrow a democratic deficit or change a repressive regime. These protests do not fall in to that category but are an attempt to impose a minority viewpoint by force (not violence as yet).
I mean, the repressive regime is one that is needlessly destroying the chance of continual human civilisation on this planet. The current system of human existence will lead to the destruction of it, potentially in my lifetime. That is the repression.
Trying to circumvent democracy is not the answer. BTW by any objective measurement human material well-being has never been higher. There are environmental challenges but the "imminent end of civilisation unless we act now" is irrational hysteria in my opinion.
I believe the environmental challenges we face are real and radical actions of some kind are probably necessary. However I also cannot forget that the 10 year old videos I watched in school in the 90s essentially said there would be no rainforests left by now.
So protestors being disruptive to get focus on the agenda I'm mostly fine with as an initial thing unless exceptionally twatish and they need to do more than childish attention seeking. But what next? What if as is always the case progress is not made as quickly as they want and what if it is not as bad as they say? How they react to that will be very interesting
Potholer54 has a good video about how projections of possible outcomes a) need to be op that.
The scientific consensus is we have 10 years to make meaningful change or the feedback cycle will lead to unavoidable and cataclysmic changes. I would like to avoid that. If we have 20 years, what is the problem with trying to do it in 10? The Cost/Benefit is "if we do this thing, life may be sustainable" versus "if we don't do this thing, human civilisation may end". I understand that literal fascists also claim everything is a civilisational threat, but in this case the data is on our side.
"The scientific consensus is we have 10 years to make meaningful change or the feedback cycle will lead to unavoidable and cataclysmic changes."
For the sake of clarity the IPCC does not say this.
The main parties need to make more effort to remind voters of Farage's close links with Trump.That could yet prove toxic for him.
The main parties need to campaign seriously! Only Farage has started, so has first mover advantage. Other parties need to get the locals out of the way first.
Last Sunday evening I had a memorable encounter with a circa 70 year old in my local pub. He proudly announced that he had just paid £25 or so to join the Brexit Party as part of the 'Fight Back'. I intervened with the suggestion that such people could have been relied upon to support Trump in the US - and that in the late Weimar Republic many of them would have voted for Adolf Hitler. Some rather feisty exchanges followed!
Here's an interesting question - where will the Tories best region (Outside the Southeast) be ?
The obvious choices are East of England and the South West, but in both the Tories face being squeezed between keen remainers and keen leavers. So I'd plump for East Midlands, where people are more likely to be focused on the potential economic damage and therefore more receptive to the Tories' compromise Brexit.
Nah, here the Dehondt system favoured them last time round. It is quite possible that the Tories will lose both their EM MEPs.
I took the question to be about share of the vote.
The question for the next GE is how prominent is Brexit going to be?
When in the middle of a storm it's easy to lose perspective. It's worth remembering back to last July when Boris and Davis resigned after "Chequers" - the polls changed very quickly and Lab took a clear lead as Con Brexiteers were up in arms at what TMay had done. Within 4 to 6 weeks the whole thing had been forgotten and Con went back into the lead. I wonder if anyone can now even remember what decision was taken at "Chequers"?
Now of course failing to leave the EU will be remembered much more than Chequers but at the same time the very short duration of that poll blip is a reminder that things can quickly move on.
If we do actually leave the EU (on whatever terms) then I suspect all the detail and wrangling will be quickly forgotten by all except the most obsessive anoraks. The big risk for Con is a GE before Brexit has actually happened - whereas if it has happened they may well be perfectly OK.
E H H Green and Robert Blake both compared Europe to the Tarriff Reform campaigns of 1880-1932.
I quote from the late John Ramsden's History of the Conservative Party: The Age of Balfour and Baldwin (from memory) about a conversation a journalist had with a Tory activist in the 1950s:
'I went through all the things that were wrong with the National Government - the means Test, the failure to stand up to the dictators, the lack of rearmament, the failure to deal with India, a general drift and lack of clarity. At every stage, he nodded. Then he broke in, with a catch in his voice, 'But don't forget, they gave us the tarriff.' There was a generation of Conservative history in his words.'
The same John Ramsden who had been a Tory councillor for my patch of East London, until I turned it into a reasonably safe LibDem ward through to his sad death. I always enjoyed delivering Focus to his house.
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
Mistake to poo poo the hard evidence of man-made climate change.
People do that - poo poo it - because they do not want to accept it.
Here are some interesting graphs from those notorious eco-hippies at Bloomberg, with more detail in the link:
Real conservatives who want to maintain our way of life should take this seriously, as David Cameron did. Once Bangladesh is underwater, and Sub-saharan africa is in permanent drought is a bit too late. You think there are too many refugees already? well imagine that...
Strangely enough, the UK could be a pretty decent place to live in a warmer climate. We would have a longer growing season with more rain due to increased precipitation. There will be more storms however so we will need to upgrade our housing stock and improve flood defences - stop building on flood plains immediately and increase forestry on upland hills. The latter would also increase farmer prosperity, rural employment and allow us to develop carbon neutral power generation using softwood incinerator power stations.
Here's an interesting question - where will the Tories best region (Outside the Southeast) be ?
The obvious choices are East of England and the South West, but in both the Tories face being squeezed between keen remainers and keen leavers. So I'd plump for East Midlands, where people are more likely to be focused on the potential economic damage and therefore more receptive to the Tories' compromise Brexit.
Nah, here the Dehondt system favoured them last time round. It is quite possible that the Tories will lose both their EM MEPs.
I took the question to be about share of the vote.
I think Scotland may be their best outside the SE. The East Midlands is No Deal territory.
The question for the next GE is how prominent is Brexit going to be?
When in the middle of a storm it's easy to lose perspective. It's worth remembering back to last July when Boris and Davis resigned after "Chequers" - the polls changed very quickly and Lab took a clear lead as Con Brexiteers were up in arms at what TMay had done. Within 4 to 6 weeks the whole thing had been forgotten and Con went back into the lead. I wonder if anyone can now even remember what decision was taken at "Chequers"?
Now of course failing to leave the EU will be remembered much more than Chequers but at the same time the very short duration of that poll blip is a reminder that things can quickly move on.
If we do actually leave the EU (on whatever terms) then I suspect all the detail and wrangling will be quickly forgotten by all except the most obsessive anoraks. The big risk for Con is a GE before Brexit has actually happened - whereas if it has happened they may well be perfectly OK.
E H H Green and Robert Blake both compared Europe to the Tarriff Reform campaigns of 1880-1932.
I quote from the late John Ramsden's History of the Conservative Party: The Age of Balfour and Baldwin (from memory) about a conversation a journalist had with a Tory activist in the 1950s:
'I went through all the things that were wrong with the National Government - the means Test, the failure to stand up to the dictators, the lack of rearmament, the failure to deal with India, a general drift and lack of clarity. At every stage, he nodded. Then he broke in, with a catch in his voice, 'But don't forget, they gave us the tarriff.' There was a generation of Conservative history in his words.'
The same John Ramsden who had been a Tory councillor for my patch of East London, until I turned it into a reasonably safe LibDem ward through to his sad death. I always enjoyed delivering Focus to his house.
61 was no age to go. I didn't know him well, but he was very friendly and helpful on those occasions I did contact him.
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
Mistake to poo poo the hard evidence of man-made climate change.
People do that - poo poo it - because they do not want to accept it.
Here are some interesting graphs from those notorious eco-hippies at Bloomberg, with more detail in the link:
Real conservatives who want to maintain our way of life should take this seriously, as David Cameron did. Once Bangladesh is underwater, and Sub-saharan africa is in permanent drought is a bit too late. You think there are too many refugees already? well imagine that...
Strangely enough, the UK could be a pretty decent place to live in a warmer climate. We would have a longer growing season with more rain due to increased precipitation. There will be more storms however so we will need to upgrade our housing stock and improve flood defences - stop building on flood plains immediately and increase forestry on upland hills. The latter would also increase farmer prosperity, rural employment and allow us to develop carbon neutral power generation using softwood incinerator power stations.
Read "The New North" by Laurence Smith. His thesis is that Scandinavia, Siberia and Canada will be the places to be (and invest) in the future, given their mineral wealth and progressively improving climate.
It doesn't work, because they can never be more than a nuisance, rather than bringing the country to a standstill. They aren't the NUM or T&GWU of old. So, the only way to win, is to win people over, and these antics will alienate people.
That is kind of what I'm getting at. I'm actually quite bullish on this climate issue. I think the problem is moving up the radar and it is going to be sorted. We will all be living in a far more green and sustainable way in a few decades from now. You can see it in the attitudes of younger people. They get it quite naturally, whereas people like me have to force ourselves.
Climate will change irrespective of levels of CO2. Sorry it isn’t us controlling the planet.
The graphs the other day showed the oscillations in climate getting more divergent over the past 2 million years (earlier record are not supported by ice cores). We as a species have been affecting the climate what - 10,000 years, tops?
Taking steps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surely prudent. But will it make a jot of difference? Probably not. The best shot we have at changing climate is a single-species mass extinction event - for homo sapiens.
/EvenGloomierThanToriesMode
The level of CO2 we reach will determine which ice sheets will survive, if any, and how many metres of sea level rise future generations experience.
But it isn't likely to happen fast enough that we have to worry about the Thames Barrier being overwhelmed in our lifetime so no-one gives a monkey.
And that's why protestors are taking more radical action.
Plainly, people do give a monkey's. That's why the UK's carbon emissions are falling.
What people don't want is to destroy a system which generates the highest ever standard of living.
We are missing our targets which are not ambitious enough. I think I would characterise that as paying lip service to the problem.
I do not agree that taking more rapid action necessarily requires dismantling capitalism.
The question for the next GE is how prominent is Brexit going to be?
When in the middle of a storm it's easy to lose perspective. It's worth remembering back to last July when Boris and Davis resigned after "Chequers" - the polls changed very quickly and Lab took a clear lead as Con Brexiteers were up in arms at what TMay had done. Within 4 to 6 weeks the whole thing had been forgotten and Con went back into the lead. I wonder if anyone can now even remember what decision was taken at "Chequers"?
Now of course failing to leave the EU will be remembered much more than Chequers but at the same time the very short duration of that poll blip is a reminder that things can quickly move on.
If we do actually leave the EU (on whatever terms) then I suspect all the detail and wrangling will be quickly forgotten by all except the most obsessive anoraks. The big risk for Con is a GE before Brexit has actually happened - whereas if it has happened they may well be perfectly OK.
E H H Green and Robert Blake both compared Europe to the Tarriff Reform campaigns of 1880-1932.
I quote from the late John Ramsden's History of the Conservative Party: The Age of Balfour and Baldwin (from memory) about a conversation a journalist had with a Tory activist in the 1950s:
'I went through all the things that were wrong with the National Government - the means Test, the failure to stand up to the dictators, the lack of rearmament, the failure to deal with India, a general drift and lack of clarity. At every stage, he nodded. Then he broke in, with a catch in his voice, 'But don't forget, they gave us the tarriff.' There was a generation of Conservative history in his words.'
The same John Ramsden who had been a Tory councillor for my patch of East London, until I turned it into a reasonably safe LibDem ward through to his sad death. I always enjoyed delivering Focus to his house.
61 was no age to go. I didn't know him well, but he was very friendly and helpful on those occasions I did contact him.
To be honest he wasn't so friendly to me, but then I did make him spend his twilight years represented by LibDem councillors, despite his best efforts to unseat us.
Here's an interesting question - where will the Tories best region (Outside the Southeast) be ?
The obvious choices are East of England and the South West, but in both the Tories face being squeezed between keen remainers and keen leavers. So I'd plump for East Midlands, where people are more likely to be focused on the potential economic damage and therefore more receptive to the Tories' compromise Brexit.
Nah, here the Dehondt system favoured them last time round. It is quite possible that the Tories will lose both their EM MEPs.
I took the question to be about share of the vote.
I think Scotland may be their best outside the SE. The East Midlands is No Deal territory.
I apologise if I was crediting the East Mids with a bit more common sense.
Pulpy has asked a good question, if one that is sadly too obscure for the bookmakers.
I'm always reminded of the Beatles and Revolution when it comes to the attitude of green politics:
You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out Don't you know it's gonna be All right, all right, all right You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well, you know We're doing what we can But if you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell is brother you have to wait Don't you know it's gonna be All right, all right, all right You say you'll change the constitution Well, you know We all want to change your head You tell me it's the institution Well, you know You better free you mind instead But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow Don't you know it's gonna be All right, all right, all right All right, all right, all right All right, all right, all right All right, all right
Too many green politics and politicans are on the 'destruction/charman Mao' path, and no wonder normal people think 'you can count me out'.
Find a way to combat climate change without directly impacting on peoples lives in too much of a negative way.
Millenarianism and similar cults appear repeatedly throughout history. Environmentalism is the latest manifestation that incorporates an element of pseudo-science to resonate with modern culture.
Mistake to poo poo the hard evidence of man-made climate change.
People do that - poo poo it - because they do not want to accept it.
Here are some interesting graphs from those notorious eco-hippies at Bloomberg, with more detail in the link:
Real conservatives who want to maintain our way of life should take this seriously, as David Cameron did. Once Bangladesh is underwater, and Sub-saharan africa is in permanent drought is a bit too late. You think there are too many refugees already? well imagine that...
Strangely enough, the UK could be a pretty decent place to live in a warmer climate. We would have a longer growing season with more rain due to increased precipitation. There will be more storms however so we will need to upgrade our housing stock and improve flood defences - stop building on flood plains immediately and increase forestry on upland hills. The latter would also increase farmer prosperity, rural employment and allow us to develop carbon neutral power generation using softwood incinerator power stations.
Read "The New North" by Laurence Smith. His thesis is that Scandinavia, Siberia and Canada will be the places to be (and invest) in the future, given their mineral wealth and progressively improving climate.
Comments
The UK doesn't bother with air conditioning generally, has a good amount of wind power in its mix, has reduced our electric consumption due to mahoosive bills, runs fuel efficient cars (and is switching to electric slowly but surely) and is closing all our coal power stations.
What do these climate hippies want ?
Wor Lass is voting Labour in the locals and in return I'm voting Green in the Euros.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/17/tories-sabotaged-britain-lets-join-their-party-conservative-leader
IMO a lot depends on a) how well the Brexit and Remain movemeents can motivate their vote and b) whether Labour mebrace a 2nd vote.
Taking steps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surely prudent. But will it make a jot of difference? Probably not. The best shot we have at changing climate is a single-species mass extinction event - for homo sapiens.
/EvenGloomierThanToriesMode
https://youtu.be/6i0eaMFk2kc
But regarding achieving real change, I think what would be more effective would be for Caroline Lucas to do what Nigel Farage did. Take a big single issue (climate change in this case) and use it to drive her Party right the way up the polls, scaring the life out of the mainstream parties in the process, until they cave in and accede to her demands.
Talk ONLY and RELENTLESSLY about that one issue. Do NOT get sidetracked onto other (secondary) topics.
So as Nigel was EU EU EU, Caroline should be Climate, Climate, Climate.
She is an excellent politician, and I think it would work.
Not that it relates to the referendum, apart from stoking the xenophobic meme, as the "smuggling" is already illegal, and nothing to do with EU rules.
1. Labour
2. Brexit Party
3. Green
4. Conservative
5. Change UK
6. Lib Dem
I can actually envisage the Tory party coming further down the list than currently shown.
People do that - poo poo it - because they do not want to accept it.
Because although it's intended to be sarcastic, it's actually correct.
Women got the vote through their actions in wartime - there is a case to be made it was delayed because senior politicians in particular in the Liberal party thought anyone as nutty as the Suffragettes should be kept as far as possible from the ballot box;
Slavery was ultimately abolished first because a series of governments found banning it a useful form of economic warfare (the USA being a dazzling exception) and later because with industrialisation it was in any case an increasingly ineffectual way of running an economy;
India was granted independence at the time it was in the way it was for a complex variety of reasons but most of them were to do with Britain's economic weakness (I think there is confusion over Gandhi's hunger strikes and the reasons for them).
So no - protests don't usually work.
And certainly a bunch of posh fascists with the intellectual capacity of a Corbyn and the self-importance of a Johnson are not going to convince anyone by behaving like the retarded twats they undoubtedly are.
And, as Cyclefree put it, if you really do want to do your bit, manage a proper garden at your home.
Who cares when you’re on at 3/1 and can get out at 4/5?
So protestors being disruptive to get focus on the agenda I'm mostly fine with as an initial thing unless exceptionally twatish and they need to do more than childish attention seeking. But what next? What if as is always the case progress is not made as quickly as they want and what if it is not as bad as they say? How they react to that will be very interesting
Admittedly that's because I'm too lazy, er, busy to do anything else. But in fairness I did deliberately design it that way when I built it three years ago.
https://truththeory.com/2017/08/20/25-pictures-1960s-offer-inside-look-hippy-era/
But it isn't likely to happen fast enough that we have to worry about the Thames Barrier being overwhelmed in our lifetime so no-one gives a monkey.
And that's why protestors are taking more radical action.
2019 - 3.0
2020 - 4.1
2021 - 10.0
2022 - 2.84
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/04/daniel-hannan-brexit-vote-conservative-in-the-european-elections-to-help-us-deliver-it-and-finish-the-job.html
https://twitter.com/eroston/status/1116786363964194816?s=19
Real conservatives who want to maintain our way of life should take this seriously, as David Cameron did. Once Bangladesh is underwater, and Sub-saharan africa is in permanent drought is a bit too late. You think there are too many refugees already? well imagine that...
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/vdqicng3bz/PeoplesVote_190416_EUElections_w.pdf
Asda offers 'free alcohol' in wrong Welsh translation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47959424
Edit - come to think of it, wouldn't be the worst place to look for the other two...
Even if cable technology improved, your main market for African power would be Europe - so cables would run through that politically reliable area of North Africa where you would be able to guarantee stability of supply. Oh hold on.
Solar will help Africa - they could process their resources themselves rather than exporting raw materials. But what they really need is stability of supply. Nigeria could be an economic World power if they can fix their electricity and utilities.
That's worth a few votes.
The scientific consensus is we have 10 years to make meaningful change or the feedback cycle will lead to unavoidable and cataclysmic changes. I would like to avoid that. If we have 20 years, what is the problem with trying to do it in 10? The Cost/Benefit is "if we do this thing, life may be sustainable" versus "if we don't do this thing, human civilisation may end". I understand that literal fascists also claim everything is a civilisational threat, but in this case the data is on our side.
What people don't want is to destroy a system which generates the highest ever standard of living.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/online-pornography-age-checks-to-be-mandatory-in-uk-from-15-july
When in the middle of a storm it's easy to lose perspective. It's worth remembering back to last July when Boris and Davis resigned after "Chequers" - the polls changed very quickly and Lab took a clear lead as Con Brexiteers were up in arms at what TMay had done. Within 4 to 6 weeks the whole thing had been forgotten and Con went back into the lead. I wonder if anyone can now even remember what decision was taken at "Chequers"?
Now of course failing to leave the EU will be remembered much more than Chequers but at the same time the very short duration of that poll blip is a reminder that things can quickly move on.
If we do actually leave the EU (on whatever terms) then I suspect all the detail and wrangling will be quickly forgotten by all except the most obsessive anoraks. The big risk for Con is a GE before Brexit has actually happened - whereas if it has happened they may well be perfectly OK.
I believe that the costs of reducing emissions can be confidently estimated (subject to modification for technology changes) whilst the predicted effects of rising temperatures are very speculative. In addition the panic over CO2 emissions arises from mathematical models that are simplifications and have no track record. The "precautionary principle" is no use either as we are almost certainly in an inter-glacial and it could be that bumping up CO2 is counteracting the move to an ice-age.
If the predecessors of the extreme environmentalists had been listened to most of us would not be here or would have short miserable lives toiling on the land.
I quote from the late John Ramsden's History of the Conservative Party: The Age of Balfour and Baldwin (from memory) about a conversation a journalist had with a Tory activist in the 1950s:
'I went through all the things that were wrong with the National Government - the means Test, the failure to stand up to the dictators, the lack of rearmament, the failure to deal with India, a general drift and lack of clarity. At every stage, he nodded. Then he broke in, with a catch in his voice, 'But don't forget, they gave us the tarriff.' There was a generation of Conservative history in his words.'
For the sake of clarity the IPCC does not say this.
I do not agree that taking more rapid action necessarily requires dismantling capitalism.
Pulpy has asked a good question, if one that is sadly too obscure for the bookmakers.
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right, all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right, all right, all right
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right
Too many green politics and politicans are on the 'destruction/charman Mao' path, and no wonder normal people think 'you can count me out'.
Find a way to combat climate change without directly impacting on peoples lives in too much of a negative way.