politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Climate change denial is dead – but the fight for green votes
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Climate change denial is dead – but the fight for green votes is starting
Donald Trump’s tweet that the snow-blasted US east coast would benefit from some global warming has reignited attention to his climate-change denial. But after a year of his presidency, it’s increasingly clear that, in terms of both public opinion and policy, rejection of climate science is a sideshow.
Comments
-
What has happened here, of course, is that Donald Trump has given climate change denying a bad name0
-
Second like England’s cricket team. Again.0
-
So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?0
-
On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-424958830 -
What we need, of course, is a Tory leader who does things like going to the Arctic and is pictured with huskies.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-424958830 -
Gestures rather than solid actions?MikeSmithson said:
What we need, of course, is a Tory leader who does things like going to the Arctic and is pictured with huskies.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
You deserve to be in opposition0 -
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html0 -
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.tlg86 said:So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/9491700869795389440 -
And we don’t look like doing that this time, either. Two positives; Curran seems to have batted reasonably well and Crane seems to have been as economical as anyone, and perhaps better than feared.Sandpit said:0 -
The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?logical_song said:
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.0 -
Yes, the LDs made an important contribution. It was still achieved under Tory premierships.logical_song said:
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html0 -
This is the key to the failure. It is much more significant than the batting. Our attack is simply not threatening on these wickets in these conditions. It means a draw is the best we can hope for. I don't think in this case we scored enough for a draw.Sandpit said:0 -
15, like the maximum number of wickets England's bowlers can take in an away Test.0
-
Of course in practice these things are much more difficult than in theory. No-one likes price rises or new taxes.Foxy said:
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.tlg86 said:So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/949170086979538944
Better for government to provide tax breaks for innovation and R&D in energy saving technologies, much easier politically and will most likely still produce the desired result in the end.0 -
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.DavidL said:
The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?logical_song said:
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.0 -
So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?Foxy said:
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.tlg86 said:So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/9491700869795389440 -
Absolutely, we could have a world class batting lineup but if we can’t get them out twice we’re not going to win a match. I fear that today we were at least a hundred runs short of what might be defendable, short of an Aussie collapse tomorrow they’re looking at over 500 on this pitch and against our bowlers. Hope I’m wrong though!DavidL said:
This is the key to the failure. It is much more significant than the batting. Our attack is simply not threatening on these wickets in these conditions. It means a draw is the best we can hope for. I don't think in this case we scored enough for a draw.Sandpit said:0 -
20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.
More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.
At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.
They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.
And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.0 -
The charge of 25p per cup for a takeaway latte is too high: for a £2.50 drink, that could represent a 10% increase in its cost; for a £1.50 filter coffee around 16-17%. It's effectively a hot drink tax.
And what's the alternative? People bring in their own refillable mugs to fill? (which would have hygiene issues) Or for shops to provide different sorts of paper cups? Or to drink coffee on-site in their own re-washable mugs? Or do we really want them to drink less coffee?
The 5p per plastic bag charge works because (a) its accepted, as it represents a very low % of the price of a shop, (b) it makes people think about just how many bags they use, because there is a nominal cost, and, (c) there is an alternative - bring in your own bags. So it's seen as fair. And its worked.
I remain to be convinced any of these apply to takeaway coffee cups. It doesn't pass the smell test.0 -
I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.DavidL said:
The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?logical_song said:
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.0 -
I think that future generations will look with incredulity at the idea that chemicals as useful as oil were simply burnt to provide energy but I suspect the policies already in place (specifically the move to electrical vehicles) will mean that oil lasts far longer than you seem to be anticipating.ydoethur said:20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.
More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.
At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.
They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.
And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.
Edit. Don't disagree about Vince. Elegant but fragile, he is not fit for purpose.0 -
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
In electoral terms, I agree with Mr. Barasi's perspective. Personally, I don't, and terms like 'denier', which have mostly been used about those attempting to pretend the Holocaust never happened, does nothing to persuade me to join the ranks of those either nagged into submission or genuinely converted to the zealous ranks of true believers.0 -
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.0 -
At Indian railway stations they used to sell tea in one-use baked clay, terracotta cups which you could with a clear conscience throw out of the window after use.Casino_Royale said:The charge of 25p per cup for a takeaway latte is too high: for a £2.50 drink, that could represent a 10% increase in its cost; for a £1.50 filter coffee around 16-17%. It's effectively a hot drink tax.
And what's the alternative? People bring in their own refillable mugs to fill? (which would have hygiene issues) Or for shops to provide different sorts of paper cups? Or to drink coffee on-site in their own re-washable mugs? Or do we really want them to drink less coffee?
The 5p per plastic bag charge works because (a) its accepted, as it represents a very low % of the price of a shop, (b) it makes people think about just how many bags they use, because there is a nominal cost, and, (c) there is an alternative - bring in your own bags. So it's seen as fair. And its worked.
I remain to be convinced any of these apply to takeaway coffee cups. It doesn't pass the smell test.0 -
The plastic bag charge was both well-accepted and effective (I gather use has dropped by 80% or more). Generally people will I think accept something costing less than a quid more if it's seen as a good cause - free-range eggs (a few pence more than battery eggs) captured most of the supermarket sales in the same way.Sandpit said:
Of course in practice these things are much more difficult than in theory. No-one likes price rises or new taxes.Foxy said:
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.tlg86 said:So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/949170086979538944
Better for government to provide tax breaks for innovation and R&D in energy saving technologies, much easier politically and will most likely still produce the desired result in the end.
Air passenger duty is a lot more and is I'd assume unpopular, but also largely accepted despite the best efforts of airlines like Ryanair to whip up indignation. I've never met a voter who mentioned it on the doorstep.0 -
Thanks for a very interesting article.
A major reason for this change is that there's very big money to be had in being green, especially in the energy sector. Money somewhat helps to concentrate minds on many levels.0 -
Mr. L, indeed, it's an alarmingly sensible policy to have subsidies linked to things like helping flood prevention.0
-
This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.
0 -
One thing Cameron did too was to get the Tories talking about climate change. While Trump is sceptical about climate change not all have been, Bush Snr signed the Rio Accord for example in 19920
-
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?0
-
Total delusional nonsense from start to finish. Output from the sun declining at the fastest rate in 10000 years. Record child and snow records smashed in the recent cold USA spell..........smell the coffee.0
-
-
I think the Conservatives are pretty much in line with the average voter on environmental issues.DavidL said:
I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.DavidL said:
The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?logical_song said:
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
0 -
Even if these “probability theorists” (whatever that means) are right (which would go against the overwhelming scientific consensus), cutting pollution, reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables are still overwhelmingly sensible ideas.Metatron said:This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.0 -
Oil and petrol have been immensely beneficial. Without them, we would have destroyed the world's forests for fuel, and would be burning much more coal.DavidL said:
I think that future generations will look with incredulity at the idea that chemicals as useful as oil were simply burnt to provide energy but I suspect the policies already in place (specifically the move to electrical vehicles) will mean that oil lasts far longer than you seem to be anticipating.ydoethur said:20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.
More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.
At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.
They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.
And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.
Edit. Don't disagree about Vince. Elegant but fragile, he is not fit for purpose.0 -
I am not sure what you mean.Charles said:
So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?Foxy said:
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.tlg86 said:So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/949170086979538944
I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.
Personally I cannot understand the fad of bottled water, or drinking coffee from a plasticised cup. As as far as possible I avoid both, on cost grounds as well as environmental. I do enjoy flying abroad though, but we all have our hypocrisies. Single use medical equipment is a bit of a nightmare too, no reuseable forceps and scissors any more, but cannot fight city hall.0 -
Apparently, scientists in Antarctica use paper plates and burn them. Less wasteful than heating water to wash them.Foxy said:I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.
0 -
Indeed. Regardless of the effect on the environment, renewable energy jsut makes more sense in pretty much every regard (when/if the technology etc etc).not_on_fire said:
Even if these “probability theorists” (whatever that means) are right (which would go against the overwhelming scientific consensus), cutting pollution, reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables are still overwhelmingly sensible ideas.Metatron said:This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.0 -
It means mathematicians who theorise about probability. And you can either say "overwhelming scientific consensus", or you can claim to know how science works, but not both. And some aspects of reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables have been an unmitigated disaster; see under "biofuel".not_on_fire said:
Even if these “probability theorists” (whatever that means) are right (which would go against the overwhelming scientific consensus), cutting pollution, reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables are still overwhelmingly sensible ideas.Metatron said:This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.0 -
Yes so do I .The conservatives seem reasonably concerned over these issuesSean_F said:
I think the Conservatives are pretty much in line with the average voter on environmental issues.DavidL said:
I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.DavidL said:
The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?logical_song said:
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.0 -
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
5p is also pretty trival amount, and as most people just tap/scan and pay with cards these days it's not even mentally noted. So, yep it's been a good policy.NickPalmer said:
The plastic bag charge was both well-accepted and effective (I gather use has dropped by 80% or more). Generally people will I think accept something costing less than a quid more if it's seen as a good cause - free-range eggs (a few pence more than battery eggs) captured most of the supermarket sales in the same way.Sandpit said:
Of course in practice these things are much more difficult than in theory. No-one likes price rises or new taxes.Foxy said:
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.tlg86 said:So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/949170086979538944
Better for government to provide tax breaks for innovation and R&D in energy saving technologies, much easier politically and will most likely still produce the desired result in the end.
Air passenger duty is a lot more and is I'd assume unpopular, but also largely accepted despite the best efforts of airlines like Ryanair to whip up indignation. I've never met a voter who mentioned it on the doorstep.
There's a fine line between a good policy like this, and a bad one though. if it had been say 50p per bag, then a lot more people would have been attacking it. So it has to be pitched and costed carefully.
Also there's practical issues. It's easy to carry an empty bag down the shops or have one knocking in the boot of the car. Thats different from cups for coffee.0 -
He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ????Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
0 -
Never mind that the AGW narrative runs contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Never mind that not one of the AGW predictions has come true. Now that we're rapidly descending into the 2024 grand solar minimum, we'll soon see that piers corbyn has been right with his solar lunar action technique all along. .....with devastating consequence for the AGW brigade.0
-
Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.
Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.0 -
I'm going to defend Mrs May like I always do.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
She's wasn't responsible for setting the rules.
That was the responsibility of the Justice Secretary.
Judging by The Telegraph article, it might be the fault of Michael Gove*.
there are fears that Worboys was released as part of a drive, launched by the Government in 2016, to give prisoners serving indefinite sentences the chance of release.
*Or Liz Truss, but my money is on Gove.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/26/michael-gove-tells-tory-mp-his-christianity-informs-prison-policy-i-believe-in-redemption_n_9076940.html0 -
It doesn't help when our neighbour (RoI) has two highly polluting, inefficient power stations, kept on for purely political reasons!ydoethur said:20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.
More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.
At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.
They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.
And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0513/700793-bord-na-mona/0 -
Morning all
This, rather like housing, is a multi-layered issue with a number of occasionally contradictory facets and possible solutions.
First, there's climate and there's the weather. Yes, it can be a bit colder than "normal" or a bit hotter than "normal" over a 10-20 year period but in geological terms, that's a blip. I'm inclined to the view that "something is happening" and it's happening in some regions very quickly and too quickly for it to be entirely natural. The uncomfortable truth is a lot of the world's population live in cities by the sea so sea-level rise causes problems for millions straight away while the permafrost melt in Alaska and northern Siberia appears less of an issue because there are fewer people involved.
Second, even if the deniers are right and there's nothing unusual happening it makes a lot of sense to use the finite natural resources of the planet more carefully and sensibly.
Third, we've treated the planet like a child treats his or her room and caused a mess. I've seen the pictures of the sea choked with our rubbish and I'm ashamed - closer to home, the post Christmas fly tipping clear up round East Ham is underway.
According to the song "in the avenues and alleyways where the soul of a man is easy to buy" - well, round East Ham it would be "in the avenues and alleyways where the mattress of a man is easy to dump". It angers me we still have a culture where individuals think dumping their rubbish on someone else's street is okay. The worst are the small builders and contractors who instead of paying to use the perfectly good civic amenity sites think dumping it elsewhere and getting someone else to clear it away is a good thing.
If you want an example of where capitalism needs to do better in environmental terms that's it - take some Thatcherite personal responsibility for your rubbish so to speak and that extends to how we eat and cook and preventing the fat-bergs which block our sewers.
People don't like being told how to live their lives but recycling is one of those instances where the messages are getting through - most people do it, they may not always do it right but they do try.0 -
Oil has been "running out" for as long as I remember. I don't think it will ever run out because we're already well in the process of replacing oil eg with electric cars well before it runs out.ydoethur said:And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.
0 -
Mr. Hunchman, disagree.
If temperatures decline then I suspect some will claim it's a success of their policy drive. If temperatures rise they'll cite it as evidence of their perspective.0 -
I'm not so much outraged at the offences he's committed, as worried about the offences that he will commit.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
No, they changed the name because twunts kept going every winter "hurf durf so much for global warming" and that was bloody tedious.Metatron said:This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
0 -
I think that Conservatives do care more about the environment than they often get credit for, the difference being that they don’t think the solution to every problem is more taxes or punitive government intervention.Yorkcity said:
Yes so do I .The conservatives seem reasonably concerned over these issuesSean_F said:
I think the Conservatives are pretty much in line with the average voter on environmental issues.DavidL said:
I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.DavidL said:
The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?logical_song said:
That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.Casino_Royale said:On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
Is May any better?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.0 -
He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
What I've always found odd is the number of contractors who think they're entitled to walk off with one's tools, or the surplus building materials that one has paid for.stodge said:Morning all
This, rather like housing, is a multi-layered issue with a number of occasionally contradictory facets and possible solutions.
First, there's climate and there's the weather. Yes, it can be a bit colder than "normal" or a bit hotter than "normal" over a 10-20 year period but in geological terms, that's a blip. I'm inclined to the view that "something is happening" and it's happening in some regions very quickly and too quickly for it to be entirely natural. The uncomfortable truth is a lot of the world's population live in cities by the sea so sea-level rise causes problems for millions straight away while the permafrost melt in Alaska and northern Siberia appears less of an issue because there are fewer people involved.
Second, even if the deniers are right and there's nothing unusual happening it makes a lot of sense to use the finite natural resources of the planet more carefully and sensibly.
Third, we've treated the planet like a child treats his or her room and caused a mess. I've seen the pictures of the sea choked with our rubbish and I'm ashamed - closer to home, the post Christmas fly tipping clear up round East Ham is underway.
According to the song "in the avenues and alleyways where the soul of a man is easy to buy" - well, round East Ham it would be "in the avenues and alleyways where the mattress of a man is easy to dump". It angers me we still have a culture where individuals think dumping their rubbish on someone else's street is okay. The worst are the small builders and contractors who instead of paying to use the perfectly good civic amenity sites think dumping it elsewhere and getting someone else to clear it away is a good thing.
If you want an example of where capitalism needs to do better in environmental terms that's it - take some Thatcherite personal responsibility for your rubbish so to speak and that extends to how we eat and cook and preventing the fat-bergs which block our sewers.
People don't like being told how to live their lives but recycling is one of those instances where the messages are getting through - most people do it, they may not always do it right but they do try.0 -
There are some people who should never be let out of prison, such as Ian Beggs, the Limbs in the Loch murderer, who will be eligible for parole next year.Philip_Thompson said:
He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
0 -
Why wasn't he given a whole life tariff?Sean_F said:
There are some people who should never be let out of prison, such as Ian Beggs, the Limbs in the Loch murderer, who will be eligible for parole next year.Philip_Thompson said:
He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
What does that mean?DavidL said:
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.0 -
The fracking argument is quite big news near me in Kirby Mispertton North Yorkshire .It is a very conservative area. I do not know enough about it to make any judgement .Some of the locals are concerned ,do not know if this is just because it is in their area , or a general worry.Also a lot of people are coming from afar to protest everyday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-418648860
-
The Judge gave a minimum term of 20 years, reduced to 18 on appeal, which is a high tariff for murder. But, this is a man who buggered his victim to death, before dismembering his body. He also tried to murder another man in 1991, but was released early because he was a model prisoner. His first murder was in 1987, but that can't be taken into account, because his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, due to prejudicial evidence (of other assaults) being introduced at his trial. These days, that evidence would probably be allowed as similar fact evidence.Philip_Thompson said:
Why wasn't he given a whole life tariff?Sean_F said:
There are some people who should never be let out of prison, such as Ian Beggs, the Limbs in the Loch murderer, who will be eligible for parole next year.Philip_Thompson said:
He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
As a matter of interest, what caused the last four ice ages and the subsequent warming?
I don't claim to be an expert, but surely that's well-documented by now.0 -
I am not a fan of the proliferation of coffee shops. The takeaway tea is usually grim, and the cups are an environmental disaster.
I would support taxes on all environmentally-unfriendly disposable packaging. We have a duty of care to those that come after us, and much like with chewing gum, much of the costs of our current behaviours are not captured in the price we pay in the shop. Capturing those costs through the tax system is a perfectly legitimate and proper role for government.
0 -
It's so hard to remember who Labour's Home Secretaries were, they changed them so often.....Slackbladder said:
He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ????Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
Huge gaffe by Angela Rayner.
Labour's spending plans are a 'bit of a s*** or bust strategy', shadow minister says
A Labour MP's colourful way of calling for more investment is seized on by Tories, who accuse the party of economic recklessness.
https://news.sky.com/story/labours-spending-plans-are-a-bit-of-a-s-or-bust-strategy-shadow-minister-says-11195726
Surely she meant to say Labour's policy would be a 'shit and bust' strategy.0 -
Mr. Eagles, be fair. She's half right.0
-
And surely she didn't mean to say "a bit of"....?TheScreamingEagles said:Huge gaffe by Angela Rayner.
Labour's spending plans are a 'bit of a s*** or bust strategy', shadow minister says
A Labour MP's colourful way of calling for more investment is seized on by Tories, who accuse the party of economic recklessness.
https://news.sky.com/story/labours-spending-plans-are-a-bit-of-a-s-or-bust-strategy-shadow-minister-says-11195726
Surely she meant to say Labour's policy would be a 'shit and bust' strategy.0 -
Starmer looking very uncomfortable in his interview with Sky as to why he didnt prosecute more casesMarqueeMark said:
It's so hard to remember who Labour's Home Secretaries were, they changed them so often.....Slackbladder said:
He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ????Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
Well we at least know who the DPP was....MarqueeMark said:
It's so hard to remember who Labour's Home Secretaries were, they changed them so often.....Slackbladder said:
He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ????Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?0 -
I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?0 -
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.TOPPING said:
What does that mean?DavidL said:
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.0 -
If someone needs to pay 25p for a paper cup then they are not able to get free water from a coffee shop. But coffee shops have a legal requirement to provide it on demand.Foxy said:
I am not sure what you mean.Charles said:
So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?Foxy said:
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.tlg86 said:So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/949170086979538944
I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.
Personally I cannot understand the fad of bottled water, or drinking coffee from a plasticised cup. As as far as possible I avoid both, on cost grounds as well as environmental. I do enjoy flying abroad though, but we all have our hypocrisies. Single use medical equipment is a bit of a nightmare too, no reuseable forceps and scissors any more, but cannot fight city hall.0 -
I don't know much about the system, but surely a parole border has to consider whether someone remains a risk to the public?DavidL said:
I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?0 -
Not sure whether I would be more concerned about the Fracking, or the invasion of protestors.Yorkcity said:The fracking argument is quite big news near me in Kirby Mispertton North Yorkshire .It is a very conservative area. I do not know enough about it to make any judgement .Some of the locals are concerned ,do not know if this is just because it is in their area , or a general worry.Also a lot of people are coming from afar to protest everyday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41864886
The Frackers have a long hard road ahead of them. I introduced a controversial energy process to the UK and it took 10 years or more before the protests died away. I had death threats, and was accused of causing asthma and cancer etc.
The process is now established and has saved many millions of tons of fossil fuel.0 -
Whilst I agree there are too many of them what else do we do with our High Streets when people buy so much online?RoyalBlue said:I am not a fan of the proliferation of coffee shops. The takeaway tea is usually grim, and the cups are an environmental disaster.
I would support taxes on all environmentally-unfriendly disposable packaging. We have a duty of care to those that come after us, and much like with chewing gum, much of the costs of our current behaviours are not captured in the price we pay in the shop. Capturing those costs through the tax system is a perfectly legitimate and proper role for government.0 -
How will that apply to grouse-moor owners?DavidL said:
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.TOPPING said:
What does that mean?DavidL said:
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
0 -
Definitely. And some suitably qualified expert has reported that he has attended classes in prison where he had reflected on his offending and shown awareness of the consequences to his victims and, critically, is no longer a threat. A brave man indeed that put his pen to that report.rottenborough said:
I don't know much about the system, but surely a parole border has to consider whether someone remains a risk to the public?DavidL said:
I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?0 -
What a stupid and enormously complacent comment. Oil is a finite fossil resource so of course it is eventually going to run out, at least the percentage of it which is possible/economical to extract.Philip_Thompson said:
Oil has been "running out" for as long as I remember. I don't think it will ever run out because we're already well in the process of replacing oil eg with electric cars well before it runs out.ydoethur said:And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.
Electric cars and renewables won't "replace oil". A lot of the extra energy powering these electric cars worldwide is going to have to come from fossil sources, from power stations which are less efficient than internal combustion engines. And vast quantities of oil will still be needed for manufacturing plastics and other industrial processes. What will power the mining machinery to mine the silicon used in solar panels and windmills? Or the vast quantities of cobalt, lithium, vanadium etc used in highly polluting processes to create the heavy duty batteries necessary to store renewable energy? Most likely it will be oil. What will be used to smelt the silicon, the steel, vanadium, cobalt, lithium....mostly coal.
0 -
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?DavidL said:
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.TOPPING said:
What does that mean?DavidL said:
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.0 -
No idea but in Scotland there is pretty much free access to the moors and hills already. Areas can be and are blocked off when a shoot is actually going on of course.OldKingCole said:
How will that apply to grouse-moor owners?DavidL said:
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.TOPPING said:
What does that mean?DavidL said:
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.0 -
“ ... When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug ...”RochdalePioneers said:Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.
Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.
Honestly, what is the contribution to global warming by going out on the road, as compared to the saving by taking your own up cup?
In global warming, the numbers are so big that if we all do a little, then it just adds up to a little. Nothing is going to change if everyone takes their own cup.
Far better to assess whether all these journeys out on the road are actually necessary.0 -
Thank you Leo for this thread. For a greeny-red like me it is nice to see this topic getting an airing o PB. Naturally, some of our resident climate change deniers have crawled out of the woodwork to spout the usual nonsense. I won't be engaging, as I know it is futile.
0 -
I thought the DPP reported to the Attorney General not the Home Secretary.Slackbladder said:
Well we at least know who the DPP was....
0 -
Hmm - sounds a bit theme park-ish. One man's enhancement is another's...DavidL said:
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.TOPPING said:
What does that mean?DavidL said:
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
I don't think farming is particularly broken atm, with the obvious exception of the price British consumers are willing to pay for eg. in particular milk and other farmed products. Take away subsidies which allow lower prices for you and me to buy milk at Tescos and prices will rise.0 -
I think the difference is that the real money that used to be paid to farmers under the CAP will be diverted to support such schemes but I agree even the CAP had made gestures in this direction.Charles said:
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?DavidL said:
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.TOPPING said:
What does that mean?DavidL said:
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.NickPalmer said:
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.Sean_F said:
I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.0 -
Presumably due to the evidential problem of proving sexual assault to the criminal standard, when the sedated victims were unable to precisely recall what took place.DavidL said:
I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?0 -
I know - only introduce the 25p charge at coffee shops at motorway service stations or that are drive-throughs, and not at those located on railway stations.YBarddCwsc said:
“ ... When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug ...”RochdalePioneers said:Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.
Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.
Honestly, what is the contribution to global warming by going out on the road, as compared to the saving by taking your own up cup?
In global warming, the numbers are so big that if we all do a little, then it just adds up to a little. Nothing is going to change if everyone takes their own cup.
Far better to assess whether all these journeys out on the road are actually necessary.0 -
There was a clear pattern of conduct which would allow the Moorov doctrine to be applied. In those circumstances women saying he had picked them up, offered them champagne, found themselves at home and suffered injuries consistent with a sexual assault would be ample. The media are quite happy to report that he was guilty of 100 rapes. Presumably there is some basis for that statement.Gadfly said:
Presumably due to the evidential problem of proving sexual assault to the criminal standard, when the sedated victims were unable to precisely recall what took place.DavidL said:
I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?0 -
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.0 -
Miss Cyclefree, in Castle Morris Dancer, coffee is black or white. The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.0
-
Coffee is for wimps.
Pineapple juice or apple juice are the drink of champions.
So is mango juice, but only when my blood sugar level is below 4.5.0 -
I've never really been convinced by the optimism behind climate-change denial. We know that the greenhouse effect is true (just look at uncle Fred's tomatoes). Proving that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect is almost schoolboy stuff. It's obvious that we've pumped loads of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. So the deniers have to rely on some mysterious, almost miraculous, other mechanism that just happens to exists and somehow negates all that. Could we be that lucky?0
-
And frankly, some of them sound a bit... French !!Morris_Dancer said:The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.
0 -
Oh you puritan you. Just because that is not the way it was done in the old country does not mean it is wrong. Chocolate is a great alternative to sugar in such a coffee. I am going to meet someone for such an "abomination" in 10 minutes.Cyclefree said:
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.Foxy said:
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.Pulpstar said:OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.0 -
Try it; the dirty little secret is that their coffee really is better (especially if you secretly hanker for coffee-flavour milkshakes). The even dirtier secret is that the best coffee shop for coffee if not for posing with your MacBook Pro is McDonalds.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, in Castle Morris Dancer, coffee is black or white. The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.
0
