32% say the pollution and environment is a big issue for Britain – the highest score we've recorded since 1989. This is likely a combination of the IPCC report and extreme weather stories we've seen across the world pic.twitter.com/LYAk5FuEUZ
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It becoming very clear that the Taliban leaders who spent the last few years in the Middle East are not the same thing as those who stayed and fought in Afghanistan. And do not control them. It’s an open question as to whether they will become completely irrelevant.
Female news anchor Beheshta Arghand made headlines when she interviewed the Taliban, days after they took control of Afghanistan Two weeks later, she fled the country amid fears for her life https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1432916645027229696
And it was (a) really easy, and (b) staggeringly good. My daughter (13) had thirds. And she thinks eating is something that old people do.
Baked rice. Who knew?
One of our Hello Fresh recipes was a baked risotto. I guess that probably means it shouldn't be called a risotto but it is very tasty and not complicated.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
That's true, but its also true to say of the German Green opposition and others.
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
That's true, but its also true to say of the German Green opposition and others.
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
German "greenery" is just a myth, amazingly people fall for it.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
That's true, but its also true to say of the German Green opposition and others.
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
German "greenery" is just a myth, amazingly people fall for it.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
That's true, but its also true to say of the German Green opposition and others.
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
German "greenery" is just a myth, amazingly people fall for it.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
This all sounds great, but:
The policy of the green party on defence, as I read it, is that the government should do the minimum to provide adequate security, and nothing more.
The whole green party edifice is built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
That's true, but its also true to say of the German Green opposition and others.
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
German "greenery" is just a myth, amazingly people fall for it.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
That's true, but its also true to say of the German Green opposition and others.
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
German "greenery" is just a myth, amazingly people fall for it.
"Green" issues will simply be absorbed into the political mainstream with the dividing line being technological capitalists versus luddite ecosocialism.
Its already happened.
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It remains to be seen if HMG can do it, given government management of large projects I doubt it.
That's true, but its also true to say of the German Green opposition and others.
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
German "greenery" is just a myth, amazingly people fall for it.
It's staggering that Germany is still burning so much coal. We have virtually stopped in comparison.
Germany still has heavy industry.
Sure, but this is a consequence of their catastrophic decision to close down their nuclear power plants (at the urging of the Greens). A disaster for the planet.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Excellent thread on questions for Dominic Raab today. Peter Carrington took responsibility for misjudgments over Argentine military invasion of Falkands and resigned as Foreign Secretary. He did not shift blame on everyone else - but that was 39 years ago when honour counted https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1432824522646904835
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Is it not about 10-15p a litre more expensive? Undoes all those years of cancelling the fuel escalator at a stroke.
Is it? Is there a source for that?
I filled up yesterday with E10 and it was the same price I paid for E5 a few weeks ago. 🤷♂️
Though petrol prices have risen so much recently people might associate the increase in cost with that but its driven by oil prices recovering post-pandemic isn't it?
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Sainsbury's sitrep midday yesterday. For the first time, there are many (though still a minority, say 20 per cent of) customers not wearing masks. Some shelves are still bare.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Are you really opposed to developing Cambo?
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Are you really opposed to developing Cambo?
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
Its pure unscientific, unenvironmental, uneconomic hogwash.
All it would do is mean we import more fuel, or export less. It will damage our balance of trade and won't impact the environment whatsoever, that's all.
Our and the world's transition away from oil will be due to technological and economic progress, like the already-set 2030 deadline to stop selling oil consuming cars, not whether or not we have a domestic oil field or import from the Middle East.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Is it not about 10-15p a litre more expensive? Undoes all those years of cancelling the fuel escalator at a stroke.
Is it? Is there a source for that?
I filled up yesterday with E10 and it was the same price I paid for E5 a few weeks ago. 🤷♂️
Though petrol prices have risen so much recently people might associate the increase in cost with that but its driven by oil prices recovering post-pandemic isn't it?
It's what I read in the local press but I am beginning to wonder if it was just going to be more expensive for those who have to use the super unleaded because their cars are not compatible.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
This all sounds great, but:
The policy of the green party on defence, as I read it, is that the government should do the minimum to provide adequate security, and nothing more.
The whole green party edifice is built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
The whole Brexit edifice is built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
The whole labour movement is built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
The Enlightenment was built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
Your words appear profound, but mean absolutely nothing.
Ethanol rots certain types of rubber and absorbs water. Classic car owners need to check and renew fuel lines, fuel pumps. Also leaving e10 fuel sitting for a while can increase the likelihood of rust due to that water absorption.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Are you really opposed to developing Cambo?
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
Its pure unscientific, unenvironmental, uneconomic hogwash.
All it would do is mean we import more fuel, or export less. It will damage our balance of trade and won't impact the environment whatsoever, that's all.
Our and the world's transition away from oil will be due to technological and economic progress, like the already-set 2030 deadline to stop selling oil consuming cars, not whether or not we have a domestic oil field or import from the Middle East.
That was my view but the person concerned is a scientist and quite distinguished in his field. He asked, how do we persuade backward countries (like Germany) to give up their cheap coal powered power stations if we can't resist bringing out yet more oil?
I am not sure that I buy into this moral leadership stuff, we rather see how that ends in Afghanistan but there is no doubt that the urgency of reducing/eliminating the burning of fossil fuels is greater than we thought.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Are you really opposed to developing Cambo?
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
Your fellow guest certainly has a point. I’m against gung-ho short termism, and I’m definitely against the party that oversees the licensing of new oil fields taking brib..sorry, contributions from companies that want to exploit new oil fields.
I understand it was stated on BBC Scotland that the emissions from the oil produced from Cambo is the equivalent of running 18 coal fired power stations (for how long I don’t know).
Just catching up with Biden's speech. Will be really interesting to see what the polls say over coming days as to where the american people are on all this.
My hunch FWIW is that the mess of exit will fade in memories and the overall strategy will be see as correct. It's what voters have been telling pollsters for a long time: end the 'pointless' wars. Still politics wouldn't be an art rather than a science if those same voters now immediately change their minds and decide Biden was wrong and America should have stayed for another ten years.
Greens may be here to stay, but there are caveats. Aeons ago CND were a major force, and the threat to humanity was nuclear weapons (especially western ones.)
The threat is exactly as great as or greater than it was in the 60's, but it is registering nowhere much on the talking head agenda. (NB IMHO we have never needed them more than right now)
Fashions change.
And green stuff may not survive actual contact with financial reality or the reality of China or no cheap flights to Venice.
While on the subject of unpopular opinions, the BBC etc are full of terrified liberal Afghans regretting western departure. I don't blame them. But their army and people faced a 1940 moment in August and ducked it. Why are the Taliban prepared to fight for their beliefs but liberals not?
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Turn up the boost your turbos, ethanol is 113 octane.
It does get past the oil control rings on the pistons and turn your engine oil into piss though.
Didn’t Ducati have problems with ethanol swelling up their tanks? Also not good for your fibreglass tank though I realise that’s pretty niche.
All this brings back memories of when I was working for an oil company.
Every now and again, someone from the US warbird racing community would ask if we could make a batch of the original 150 octane WII era stuff. Management would get all excited, until the chaps at the refineries spelt out the issues....
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
Greens in Scotland are a gaggle of useless half witted F*** wits ,
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Are you really opposed to developing Cambo?
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
Its pure unscientific, unenvironmental, uneconomic hogwash.
All it would do is mean we import more fuel, or export less. It will damage our balance of trade and won't impact the environment whatsoever, that's all.
Our and the world's transition away from oil will be due to technological and economic progress, like the already-set 2030 deadline to stop selling oil consuming cars, not whether or not we have a domestic oil field or import from the Middle East.
That was my view but the person concerned is a scientist and quite distinguished in his field. He asked, how do we persuade backward countries (like Germany) to give up their cheap coal powered power stations if we can't resist bringing out yet more oil?
I am not sure that I buy into this moral leadership stuff, we rather see how that ends in Afghanistan but there is no doubt that the urgency of reducing/eliminating the burning of fossil fuels is greater than we thought.
David , he may be a scientist , but he is a half wit and that is me being polite. Does he also think chopping his leg off will help disabled people. God help us from dangerous do gooders who are supposed to be clever but sound like they could not wipe their own rear ends.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Are you really opposed to developing Cambo?
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
Its pure unscientific, unenvironmental, uneconomic hogwash.
All it would do is mean we import more fuel, or export less. It will damage our balance of trade and won't impact the environment whatsoever, that's all.
Our and the world's transition away from oil will be due to technological and economic progress, like the already-set 2030 deadline to stop selling oil consuming cars, not whether or not we have a domestic oil field or import from the Middle East.
That was my view but the person concerned is a scientist and quite distinguished in his field. He asked, how do we persuade backward countries (like Germany) to give up their cheap coal powered power stations if we can't resist bringing out yet more oil?
I am not sure that I buy into this moral leadership stuff, we rather see how that ends in Afghanistan but there is no doubt that the urgency of reducing/eliminating the burning of fossil fuels is greater than we thought.
We persuade them to give up their coal powered power stations by giving them up ourselves. We've already done that! If that's not enough for them, then what else is going to change anything?
"Bringing out yet more oil" into a world awash with oil doesn't change the world one iota. Stopping the consumption of oil (or coal) via changing technologies does.
Whether we consume oil or coal we "brought out" ourselves is immaterial - imported fossil fuels just marginally increases the emissions it doesn't reduce them.
It is the elimination of coal consumption at power plants, or oil consumption via changing to electric vehicles, that will change the world.
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Each to their own but I do agree with you about some pointless masochism. Indeed, I've increasingly come to find a middle way here: eschewing the more ridiculous challenges which you're probably right to critique, but at the same time not simply sitting on my derriere. A friend of mine asked me recently to do the three peaks challenge in Yorkshire and I was pleased simply to say 'no'. Why would belting up and down three austere peaks in 24 hours be remotely sensible, enjoyable or getting close to nature?
Of course, a lot of people use extreme exercise to challenge themselves but also to escape from things: literally running away. It's probably better than hitting the bottle but not by much.
Walking is a magnificent form of exercise if you're able to put in a good couple of hours of it each time. It's part of my covid recalibration that this is exactly what I now do every day.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
Greens in Scotland are a gaggle of useless half witted F*** wits ,
Don't want to interrupt you Malc, when you're putting your case so eloquently, but can a f*** wit really be half witted? I always had half wits a step above f*** wits, myself.
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Ah, so you're the sort of person who 'enjoys' nature within a few hundred metres of a car park. I'm glad there're people like you, as it means the wilds are a little emptier.
I'm currently doing a multi-year running project. During these runs, I've seen things and discovered stuff about my local area that no amount of sitting about in a chair would have taught me. From Roman burial mounds to communal bread ovens; village lock-ups to secret WW2 airbases. I've got to know and appreciate this little corner of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire so much more.
Besides, much of what we do in life is completely pointless. 99% of your posts on PB probably don't matter much (mine, as well). Yet we post.
My rule of thumb on Green tactical voting in a tight race is that about 60% do it without being pressed, a bit more if positively urged to or another left-of-centre party is clearly very close to beating the Tories. Lasbour voters are a bit more up for it (70%?), LibDems a bit less (50%?), since not all LibDem voters see Labour as better than Tories - most do, but some go the other way.
Sainsbury's sitrep midday yesterday. For the first time, there are many (though still a minority, say 20 per cent of) customers not wearing masks. Some shelves are still bare.
It's utter madness at the moment not to be wearing a mask in a confined indoor space. I had a go at M&S staff two days ago. All the customers were in masks and none of the staff. My other local shop had to shut because, surprise surprise, the anti-mask staff got struck down by covid.
We only need to look at Israel to see this ain't yet over. Where's Johnson on this? Nowhere. So a month or two from now we will start playing catch up.
Going green isn't just because of climate change or cleaner air or concerns about reliance on oil prices - we should do it because we can be good at it.
These islands are ready-made for exploitation of the weather for energy generation. We have a lot of wind, a lot of sunshine and a lot of tides. Yet instead of investing in leading edge green energy technology we seem happy to import it.
This has to reverse. I know that in this era of free market bankism investment is seen as communism, but we really need to spend now to both save later and sell later.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Greens may be here to stay, but there are caveats. Aeons ago CND were a major force, and the threat to humanity was nuclear weapons (especially western ones.)
The threat is exactly as great as or greater than it was in the 60's, but it is registering nowhere much on the talking head agenda. (NB IMHO we have never needed them more than right now)
Fashions change.
And green stuff may not survive actual contact with financial reality or the reality of China or no cheap flights to Venice.
While on the subject of unpopular opinions, the BBC etc are full of terrified liberal Afghans regretting western departure. I don't blame them. But their army and people faced a 1940 moment in August and ducked it. Why are the Taliban prepared to fight for their beliefs but liberals not?
Nowhere much on the talking head agenda?? I appreciate that I'm working in the field so I see more of this stuff, but my perception is that scarcely a day goes by before another talking head, commission, NGO or government study pops up talking about the threat of climate change. I was around the 60s and there was much less cross-party consensus on nukes - everyone thought it very dangerous but the centre-right perception was that the danger was all from Russia. Nowadays you have to be very kooky (hello Piers) to say climate change isn't a problem.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
Stuart your tinted specs view of Scotland from across the water is amusing. Perhaps a spell back in Scotland would disabuse you of your romantic view and perhaps enlighten you to the state of the place. You are sounding like some old hippie stuck in the 60's.
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Each to their own but I do agree with you about some pointless masochism. Indeed, I've increasingly come to find a middle way here: eschewing the more ridiculous challenges which you're probably right to critique, but at the same time not simply sitting on my derriere. A friend of mine asked me recently to do the three peaks challenge in Yorkshire and I was pleased simply to say 'no'. Why would belting up and down three austere peaks in 24 hours be remotely sensible, enjoyable or getting close to nature?
Of course, a lot of people use extreme exercise to challenge themselves but also to escape from things: literally running away. It's probably better than hitting the bottle but not by much.
Walking is a magnificent form of exercise if you're able to put in a good couple of hours of it each time. It's part of my covid recalibration that this is exactly what I now do every day.
Setting yourself challenges can be very positive. You get to learn about yourself and your limits; it gives you something to focus on outside family life and work.
Yet there is also some truth in what you say. The Pennine Way is not as popular as it once was, but apparently in the seventies and eighties loads of people did it for charity. To be different, some did it walking backwards; others in a wheelbarrow. That does seem kind-of pointless.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
I think there’s a tendency for onlookers to think of the list regional vote for Holyrood as a second vote and therefore taken less seriously by voters. As I pointed out out during the last Holyrood election I know plenty of folk who saw their list Green vote as their primary one with their constituency vote complimentary to that. I don’t think there are many young Scots looking at SLab or (lol) SCons and thinking ‘gosh, a vote for them will also be great for the planet’.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Those exploding heads are mostly bald, wrinkly, Tory and/or not on the Scottish electoral register. They’ve had their day. The kidz are in town.
I’m sure the wrinkly heads are ripe for a bounce back with exciting ideas such as sooking up the oil from the Cambo field then storing it for some indefinite period, or that not drilling Cambo would be a disaster for the environment. Am also looking forward to the torchlit parades to celebrate the opening of COP26.
Are you really opposed to developing Cambo?
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
Your fellow guest certainly has a point. I’m against gung-ho short termism, and I’m definitely against the party that oversees the licensing of new oil fields taking brib..sorry, contributions from companies that want to exploit new oil fields.
I understand it was stated on BBC Scotland that the emissions from the oil produced from Cambo is the equivalent of running 18 coal fired power stations (for how long I don’t know).
That's a bollocks comparison. You can't compare the supply of something that is needed and will be supplied either way, with the consumption of something that isn't needed and has been stopped already in this country.
We're going to consume the oil either way, the question is not whether our petrol cars drive on Cambo-fuelled oil or switch to green energy instead. The question is whether we drive our petrol cars on Cambo-fuelled oil or Saudi [or other] fuelled oil instead.
So what is the purpose in paying the Saudis [or others] for fuel instead of workers at Cambo?
Whereas running 18 coal fired power stations, which could instead be switched off and have nuclear or wind or hydro or other power plants running instead does add to CO2 emissions.
We've already shown switching off coal is possible, we've done it already. We've already got a date set for switching off oil sales, but we need oil until we get through this transition.
It isn't a choice of oil or no oil. Its Cambo oil or Saudi [or other] oil.
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Each to their own but I do agree with you about some pointless masochism. Indeed, I've increasingly come to find a middle way here: eschewing the more ridiculous challenges which you're probably right to critique, but at the same time not simply sitting on my derriere. A friend of mine asked me recently to do the three peaks challenge in Yorkshire and I was pleased simply to say 'no'. Why would belting up and down three austere peaks in 24 hours be remotely sensible, enjoyable or getting close to nature?
Of course, a lot of people use extreme exercise to challenge themselves but also to escape from things: literally running away. It's probably better than hitting the bottle but not by much.
Walking is a magnificent form of exercise if you're able to put in a good couple of hours of it each time. It's part of my covid recalibration that this is exactly what I now do every day.
Wise words. Saying ‘No’ to addicts is very important.
One of the aspects of modern Swedish society that bugs the shit out of me is the ubiquity of gyms. Can’t stand the fuckers. Get out in nature you pathetic twats. Proximity to nature is one of the greatest assets of the country. Donate the saved membership money to charity.
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Ah, so you're the sort of person who 'enjoys' nature within a few hundred metres of a car park. I'm glad there're people like you, as it means the wilds are a little emptier.
I'm currently doing a multi-year running project. During these runs, I've seen things and discovered stuff about my local area that no amount of sitting about in a chair would have taught me. From Roman burial mounds to communal bread ovens; village lock-ups to secret WW2 airbases. I've got to know and appreciate this little corner of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire so much more.
Besides, much of what we do in life is completely pointless. 99% of your posts on PB probably don't matter much (mine, as well). Yet we post.
Absurd. My posts on here are incredibly persuasive and change lots of opinions 😉
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Greens now in government in Scotland of course and looking set for government in Germany again.
The Greens also provided support for Gillard's minority Labor government in Australia in 2010 and for Ardern's Labour government in New Zealand in 2017.
As they only have 1 MP here the Tories and Unionists would only have to be 1 or 2 seats short of a combined majority for the Greens to make the difference to make Starmer PM but it is not completely impossible.
However they can also cost the main centre left party too eg Green candidate Ralph Nader cost Gore key votes in Florida which gave Bush the state and the EC and the Presidency in 2000
The whole planet is heading in this direction. I think we’re heading fast to three day weeks.
I personally work as few hours as I possibly can, typically about 30 hours a week, but sometimes fewer. I regard people who work more than 50 hours per week to be mentally retarded.
The habit of “presenteeism” is a tragedy. Folk hanging around doing fuck all. Twats. Either be productive or go home.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
I concur that the future is looking bright for Green politics and parties, in stark contrast to species and habitat diversity, invasive species damage, climate change etc.
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions: - ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty - control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies - fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
Greens in Scotland are a gaggle of useless half witted F*** wits ,
Don't want to interrupt you Malc, when you're putting your case so eloquently, but can a f*** wit really be half witted? I always had half wits a step above f*** wits, myself.
I should perhaps have said "cretinous F***wits" as they are worse than your average F***wit
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Ah, so you're the sort of person who 'enjoys' nature within a few hundred metres of a car park. I'm glad there're people like you, as it means the wilds are a little emptier.
I'm currently doing a multi-year running project. During these runs, I've seen things and discovered stuff about my local area that no amount of sitting about in a chair would have taught me. From Roman burial mounds to communal bread ovens; village lock-ups to secret WW2 airbases. I've got to know and appreciate this little corner of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire so much more.
Besides, much of what we do in life is completely pointless. 99% of your posts on PB probably don't matter much (mine, as well). Yet we post.
That's rather cruel.
Stu is gearing up for an assault on the eating-baked-beans-with-a-cocktail-stick record.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Each to their own but I do agree with you about some pointless masochism. Indeed, I've increasingly come to find a middle way here: eschewing the more ridiculous challenges which you're probably right to critique, but at the same time not simply sitting on my derriere. A friend of mine asked me recently to do the three peaks challenge in Yorkshire and I was pleased simply to say 'no'. Why would belting up and down three austere peaks in 24 hours be remotely sensible, enjoyable or getting close to nature?
Of course, a lot of people use extreme exercise to challenge themselves but also to escape from things: literally running away. It's probably better than hitting the bottle but not by much.
Walking is a magnificent form of exercise if you're able to put in a good couple of hours of it each time. It's part of my covid recalibration that this is exactly what I now do every day.
Wise words. Saying ‘No’ to addicts is very important.
One of the aspects of modern Swedish society that bugs the shit out of me is the ubiquity of gyms. Can’t stand the fuckers. Get out in nature you pathetic twats. Proximity to nature is one of the greatest assets of the country. Donate the saved membership money to charity.
To each his own, but neither peak-climbing nor getting out into nature nor gyms appeal to me. At the risk of sounding like Contrarian, why shouldn't we all do what we like, although with an eye to keeping more or less fit one way or another?
The assumption that if you don't like what someone else likes you're a "pathetic twat" is fundamentally flawed. Applies to all kinds of stuff that people posture about - food, music, books, movies. I'll try something that someone recommends and if it doesn't appeal I'll do something else. Get over it!
Just catching up with Biden's speech. Will be really interesting to see what the polls say over coming days as to where the american people are on all this.
My hunch FWIW is that the mess of exit will fade in memories and the overall strategy will be see as correct. It's what voters have been telling pollsters for a long time: end the 'pointless' wars. Still politics wouldn't be an art rather than a science if those same voters now immediately change their minds and decide Biden was wrong and America should have stayed for another ten years.
Depends on whether the US suffers more Al Qaeda domestic terrorism. If so, the response towards Biden will be brutal.
Sainsbury's sitrep midday yesterday. For the first time, there are many (though still a minority, say 20 per cent of) customers not wearing masks. Some shelves are still bare.
It's utter madness at the moment not to be wearing a mask in a confined indoor space. I had a go at M&S staff two days ago. All the customers were in masks and none of the staff. My other local shop had to shut because, surprise surprise, the anti-mask staff got struck down by covid.
We only need to look at Israel to see this ain't yet over. Where's Johnson on this? Nowhere. So a month or two from now we will start playing catch up.
If you have been double vaccinated it should be personal choice if you want to wear a mask in shops.
Yes you might be slightly more likely to catch Covid but you are very unlikely to be hospitalised anyway.
If you have not been double vaccinated then getting jabbed would protect you from Covid far more than just wearing a mask would and almost everyone has been offered both jabs now
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Ah, so you're the sort of person who 'enjoys' nature within a few hundred metres of a car park. I'm glad there're people like you, as it means the wilds are a little emptier.
I'm currently doing a multi-year running project. During these runs, I've seen things and discovered stuff about my local area that no amount of sitting about in a chair would have taught me. From Roman burial mounds to communal bread ovens; village lock-ups to secret WW2 airbases. I've got to know and appreciate this little corner of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire so much more.
Besides, much of what we do in life is completely pointless. 99% of your posts on PB probably don't matter much (mine, as well). Yet we post.
That's rather cruel.
Stu is gearing up for an assault on the eating-baked-beans-with-a-cocktail stick record.
Nah, that's old school. How about the eating-cocktail-sticks-with-a-bean record?
The whole planet is heading in this direction. I think we’re heading fast to three day weeks.
I personally work as few hours as I possibly can, typically about 30 hours a week, but sometimes fewer. I regard people who work more than 50 hours per week to be mentally retarded.
The habit of “presenteeism” is a tragedy. Folk hanging around doing fuck all. Twats. Either be productive or go home.
New greener petrol will be introduced to service stations across Britain from today despite fears that hundreds of thousands of drivers still do not know whether their car can use it without being damaged.
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
Greens may be here to stay, but there are caveats. Aeons ago CND were a major force, and the threat to humanity was nuclear weapons (especially western ones.)
The threat is exactly as great as or greater than it was in the 60's, but it is registering nowhere much on the talking head agenda. (NB IMHO we have never needed them more than right now)
Fashions change.
And green stuff may not survive actual contact with financial reality or the reality of China or no cheap flights to Venice.
While on the subject of unpopular opinions, the BBC etc are full of terrified liberal Afghans regretting western departure. I don't blame them. But their army and people faced a 1940 moment in August and ducked it. Why are the Taliban prepared to fight for their beliefs but liberals not?
Nowhere much on the talking head agenda?? I appreciate that I'm working in the field so I see more of this stuff, but my perception is that scarcely a day goes by before another talking head, commission, NGO or government study pops up talking about the threat of climate change. I was around the 60s and there was much less cross-party consensus on nukes - everyone thought it very dangerous but the centre-right perception was that the danger was all from Russia. Nowadays you have to be very kooky (hello Piers) to say climate change isn't a problem.
I fully accept your point, but I think a good deal of my point remains. Green popular opinion has not yet been tested against hard decisions. And despite the talk of progress in terms of the amount of CO2 being put out by the world remains as high as ever.
Just catching up with Biden's speech. Will be really interesting to see what the polls say over coming days as to where the american people are on all this.
My hunch FWIW is that the mess of exit will fade in memories and the overall strategy will be see as correct. It's what voters have been telling pollsters for a long time: end the 'pointless' wars. Still politics wouldn't be an art rather than a science if those same voters now immediately change their minds and decide Biden was wrong and America should have stayed for another ten years.
The polls so far have shown pretty consistently that Biden's popularity took a hit (about 7-8%) but has since stabilised at about 50-50 (see https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/, skipping Rasmussen). I doubt if there will be much more effect from Afghanistan unless some new 9/11 horror results from it.
Nope. Purely for masochists. And completely pointless.
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Ah, so you're the sort of person who 'enjoys' nature within a few hundred metres of a car park. I'm glad there're people like you, as it means the wilds are a little emptier.
I'm currently doing a multi-year running project. During these runs, I've seen things and discovered stuff about my local area that no amount of sitting about in a chair would have taught me. From Roman burial mounds to communal bread ovens; village lock-ups to secret WW2 airbases. I've got to know and appreciate this little corner of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire so much more.
Besides, much of what we do in life is completely pointless. 99% of your posts on PB probably don't matter much (mine, as well). Yet we post.
Err… no. I didn’t say anything about *where* you place your picnic chair. Certainly nowhere near the gawkers at car parks. By definition, picnic chairs are portable. Legs, boat, bike, whatever. Take it out to an isolated skerry and ponder the grandeur of the Atlantic.
The whole human race is entirely pointless. Just snog a few pretty birds and have a laugh or two before you’re put six feet under.
Comments
My god. Whoever made that suggestion, you are a genius. I made https://www.finecooking.com/recipe/baked-rice-with-confit-tomatoes-and-garlic
And it was (a) really easy, and (b) staggeringly good. My daughter (13) had thirds. And she thinks eating is something that old people do.
Baked rice. Who knew?
Yet Greens seem to be making little impression in Canada
I can understand the impulse to be rude about all things Jock, but the success of the Green movement in Scotland deserves a little deeper analysis than the Veganism jibe. For a start, ask yourself (or, better yet, ask the Scottish Green Party) *why* they support independence?
Some suggestions:
- ejecting nuclear weapons from our country is only possible with sovereignty
- control of our waters (the largest and richest in the UK) would allow us to pursue greener marine policies
- fairness and popular sovereignty: green politics (everywhere, not just in Scotland) is driven from the bottom up, and - crucially - by young people. Young Scots are very green, and also very pro-independence. It chimes with their core voters.
Will try with a substitute.
Their policies, unlike their philosophy, are not immutable.
I feel so sad for them
The British Tory government has already pledged to cut CO2 emissions by more, and faster, than the German Greens have supported.
Yet I won't hold my breath for anyone "Green" to be grateful to the Tories, or to criticise the German Greens, and if the German Greens do well I expect to see many breathless reports about what it means for the Greens here as opposed to pointing out the fact that our government is already more green.
It’s an open question as to whether they will become completely irrelevant.
Female news anchor Beheshta Arghand made headlines when she interviewed the Taliban, days after they took control of Afghanistan
Two weeks later, she fled the country amid fears for her life
https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1432916645027229696
I also used an old red onion roughly chopped, as I had no shallots, and chucked a couple of cardamom pods in there, because why not.
Mr. Brooke, UK governments are less concerned with realism and impact of green policies as getting some nice headlines.
https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1432824617253670916?s=19
What's also true is that again the British have already cut emissions by more and faster than the Germans and others.
In the past decade coal power has been all but eliminated in the UK, whereas the Germans have prioritised eliminating zero-emission nuclear power instead and get 35-40% of their power from coal still.
https://www.statista.com/chart/17582/megatonnes-of-co2-equivalent-in-the-eu/
It's all garbage.
Of course the combination of a party committed to the environment & Indy and now in government has made some people’s heads explode and therefore incapable of objective analysis.
Although maybe not that much more?
More than 8,000 petrol stations will start selling E10 fuel, which is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from combustion engines, throughout September. The petrol is blended with 10 per cent bioethanol, which is made from materials such as grains, sugars and waste wood.
E5 petrol, which is sold throughout the UK at present, has 5 per cent bioethanol.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-can-use-the-new-greener-e10-petrol-gfkz63ghm
The policy of the green party on defence, as I read it, is that the government should do the minimum to provide adequate security, and nothing more.
The whole green party edifice is built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
Seems an overreaction but I do love Tex Mex.
Superb idea but he cocked it up by making a smell when cutting his stash and was reported by neighbours and busted before he could sell any.
I wonder if it's been going on for years but he's the first to be caught.
I filled up yesterday with E10 and it was the same price I paid for E5 a few weeks ago. 🤷♂️
Though petrol prices have risen so much recently people might associate the increase in cost with that but its driven by oil prices recovering post-pandemic isn't it?
It does get past the oil control rings on the pistons and turn your engine oil into piss though.
I was at a dinner party on Monday and one of the guests was of that view. He thought as a G7 nation we should be showing a lead, that the quantity of oil already available should be sufficient to transition our economy from hydrocarbons to renewables and that we would lose all moral authority to express a view on these matters if we could not resist the temptation of another oil field. Basically he was arguing that the world couldn't really afford to burn the oil we already had and did not need more.
I was quite startled to be honest but it was thought provoking.
All it would do is mean we import more fuel, or export less. It will damage our balance of trade and won't impact the environment whatsoever, that's all.
Our and the world's transition away from oil will be due to technological and economic progress, like the already-set 2030 deadline to stop selling oil consuming cars, not whether or not we have a domestic oil field or import from the Middle East.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58400061
Except I'm too wimpy to attempt it.
The whole labour movement is built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
The Enlightenment was built on a profound misunderstanding of history.
Your words appear profound, but mean absolutely nothing.
I am not sure that I buy into this moral leadership stuff, we rather see how that ends in Afghanistan but there is no doubt that the urgency of reducing/eliminating the burning of fossil fuels is greater than we thought.
I understand it was stated on BBC Scotland that the emissions from the oil produced from Cambo is the equivalent of running 18 coal fired power stations (for how long I don’t know).
My hunch FWIW is that the mess of exit will fade in memories and the overall strategy will be see as correct. It's what voters have been telling pollsters for a long time: end the 'pointless' wars. Still politics wouldn't be an art rather than a science if those same voters now immediately change their minds and decide Biden was wrong and America should have stayed for another ten years.
How's that working out for the West?
The threat is exactly as great as or greater than it was in the 60's, but it is registering nowhere much on the talking head agenda. (NB IMHO we have never needed them more than right now)
Fashions change.
And green stuff may not survive actual contact with financial reality or the reality of China or no cheap flights to Venice.
While on the subject of unpopular opinions, the BBC etc are full of terrified liberal Afghans regretting western departure. I don't blame them. But their army and people faced a 1940 moment in August and ducked it. Why are the Taliban prepared to fight for their beliefs but liberals not?
I wish we would approach the natural world from a holistic Gaia starting point. Straight lines, bird lists and other “square” ways of looking at our landscape, geology and nature sap the sheer joy out of the experience. Just pull up a picnic chair and sit there for an hour or two. Just absorb nature. You don’t need to *do* anything.
Every now and again, someone from the US warbird racing community would ask if we could make a batch of the original 150 octane WII era stuff. Management would get all excited, until the chaps at the refineries spelt out the issues....
"Bringing out yet more oil" into a world awash with oil doesn't change the world one iota. Stopping the consumption of oil (or coal) via changing technologies does.
Whether we consume oil or coal we "brought out" ourselves is immaterial - imported fossil fuels just marginally increases the emissions it doesn't reduce them.
It is the elimination of coal consumption at power plants, or oil consumption via changing to electric vehicles, that will change the world.
When exactly did England lose her stiff upper lip? Second World War Englishmen would hardly recognise the fairies of modern England.
Of course, a lot of people use extreme exercise to challenge themselves but also to escape from things: literally running away. It's probably better than hitting the bottle but not by much.
Walking is a magnificent form of exercise if you're able to put in a good couple of hours of it each time. It's part of my covid recalibration that this is exactly what I now do every day.
I'm currently doing a multi-year running project. During these runs, I've seen things and discovered stuff about my local area that no amount of sitting about in a chair would have taught me. From Roman burial mounds to communal bread ovens; village lock-ups to secret WW2 airbases. I've got to know and appreciate this little corner of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire so much more.
Besides, much of what we do in life is completely pointless. 99% of your posts on PB probably don't matter much (mine, as well). Yet we post.
We only need to look at Israel to see this ain't yet over. Where's Johnson on this? Nowhere. So a month or two from now we will start playing catch up.
Scotland is to trial a four-day week, but without a loss of pay......
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403087
These islands are ready-made for exploitation of the weather for energy generation. We have a lot of wind, a lot of sunshine and a lot of tides. Yet instead of investing in leading edge green energy technology we seem happy to import it.
This has to reverse. I know that in this era of free market bankism investment is seen as communism, but we really need to spend now to both save later and sell later.
I think we have had 8-9 years of no +3% a year fuel escalator, which would have increased fuel prices by around 30%.
10-15p increase per litre is 10% of current prices.
Aside: looking at the data for a different debate, and cars are in total using the same amount of fuel they did in 2000.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928350/2020_Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK__ECUK_.pdf
Yet there is also some truth in what you say. The Pennine Way is not as popular as it once was, but apparently in the seventies and eighties loads of people did it for charity. To be different, some did it walking backwards; others in a wheelbarrow. That does seem kind-of pointless.
We're going to consume the oil either way, the question is not whether our petrol cars drive on Cambo-fuelled oil or switch to green energy instead. The question is whether we drive our petrol cars on Cambo-fuelled oil or Saudi [or other] fuelled oil instead.
So what is the purpose in paying the Saudis [or others] for fuel instead of workers at Cambo?
Whereas running 18 coal fired power stations, which could instead be switched off and have nuclear or wind or hydro or other power plants running instead does add to CO2 emissions.
We've already shown switching off coal is possible, we've done it already. We've already got a date set for switching off oil sales, but we need oil until we get through this transition.
It isn't a choice of oil or no oil. Its Cambo oil or Saudi [or other] oil.
One of the aspects of modern Swedish society that bugs the shit out of me is the ubiquity of gyms. Can’t stand the fuckers. Get out in nature you pathetic twats. Proximity to nature is one of the greatest assets of the country. Donate the saved membership money to charity.
R4 More or Less at 9am will be tackling the 'shortage of lorry drivers' and what is it caused by.
The Greens also provided support for Gillard's minority Labor government in Australia in 2010 and for Ardern's Labour government in New Zealand in 2017.
As they only have 1 MP here the Tories and Unionists would only have to be 1 or 2 seats short of a combined majority for the Greens to make the difference to make Starmer PM but it is not completely impossible.
However they can also cost the main centre left party too eg Green candidate Ralph Nader cost Gore key votes in Florida which gave Bush the state and the EC and the Presidency in 2000
I personally work as few hours as I possibly can, typically about 30 hours a week, but sometimes fewer. I regard people who work more than 50 hours per week to be mentally retarded.
The habit of “presenteeism” is a tragedy. Folk hanging around doing fuck all. Twats. Either be productive or go home.
Stu is gearing up for an assault on the eating-baked-beans-with-a-cocktail-stick record.
The assumption that if you don't like what someone else likes you're a "pathetic twat" is fundamentally flawed. Applies to all kinds of stuff that people posture about - food, music, books, movies. I'll try something that someone recommends and if it doesn't appeal I'll do something else. Get over it!
Yes you might be slightly more likely to catch Covid but you are very unlikely to be hospitalised anyway.
If you have not been double vaccinated then getting jabbed would protect you from Covid far more than just wearing a mask would and almost everyone has been offered both jabs now
But sure, we'll 'help the environment' by paying the Saudis to import more because others won't stop burning coal, that'll help. 🤦♂️
And fashions (on the left especially) change.
The whole human race is entirely pointless. Just snog a few pretty birds and have a laugh or two before you’re put six feet under.