politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s looking like a no-deal brexit or else an Article 50 exten
Options
Comments
-
I'd agree with that. Even Emma Thompson jetting back from LA for the weekend for her photo-op on the XR boat served that purpose, as much of that sort of celebrity activism can.Gardenwalker said:
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.0 -
Same people doing their nuts on president Clinton.AlastairMeeks said:
I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?rkrkrk said:
Long campaign I reckon. Last time Labour did steadily better as the campaign went on. Plus during the campaign period there are broadcast impartiality rules which means Labour gets more of a chance to make their case.AlastairMeeks said:
That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?SouthamObserver said:
I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.AlastairMeeks said:Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?
0 -
That I think could have been phrased better...Pulpstar said:
Same people doing their nuts on president Clinton.AlastairMeeks said:
I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?rkrkrk said:
Long campaign I reckon. Last time Labour did steadily better as the campaign went on. Plus during the campaign period there are broadcast impartiality rules which means Labour gets more of a chance to make their case.AlastairMeeks said:
That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?SouthamObserver said:
I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.AlastairMeeks said:Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?
0 -
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.0 -
It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.ydoethur said:
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.OblitusSumMe said:
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?ydoethur said:
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.Gardenwalker said:
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.0 -
They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.OblitusSumMe said:
It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.ydoethur said:
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.OblitusSumMe said:
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?ydoethur said:
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.Gardenwalker said:
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.0 -
Thanks.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.0 -
LibDem MPs starting to push Swinson to accept Corbyn as interim PM?
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-mps-must-stop-playing-politics-with-no-deal-118311030 -
I'm not sure that depoliticising climate change is the way forward. That way leads to political solutions being imposed without debate.
What we need is a political debate about the best methods to use. I think this debate mostly divides on the question of to what extent the government should intervene directly by spending money on potential solutions as opposed to creating market incentives for people to find their own solutions (eg by taxing carbon).
But maybe that's a debate we should have had 15 years ago. As I recall we instead wasted our time arguing over the latest bit of denialism.0 -
The mask completely fell off Laura Kuenssberg when she peddled more lines from Tory HQ.
Allegedly as soon as the Benn Act was passed the EU negotiating position hardened .
There were no negotiations at the time of that passing and its only when it did pass that Bozo even looked remotely bothered in getting a deal.
0 -
You forget the polls.rottenborough said:
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.
Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.
He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.
SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.0 -
I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.ydoethur said:
They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.OblitusSumMe said:
It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.ydoethur said:
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.OblitusSumMe said:
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?ydoethur said:
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.Gardenwalker said:
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
https://www.ft.com/content/26e8d1e0-dbb3-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f170 -
And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
1 -
They will need a lot more than that in the event of what is likely to be a very acrimonious Brexit. They will be asking the EU to pay an awfully large amount and with the coming very big recession they will struggle to get it.Nigelb said:Ireland budgeting €1bn for no deal contingency planning:
https://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-to-spend-more-than-e1b-on-no-deal-brexit-planning/
0 -
And you think all the things in your list of non-deniables flow incontrovertibly from that, do you?matthiasfromhamburg said:
The world as a whole is not fully understood, but many things are, eg. the heat retention properties of CO2.
Don't get me wrong, I installed solar panels in 2013 because I thought it was a good thing to do (and after a drop in subsidies which made it pretty cost-ineffective), so any attempt by you to outgroup me is going to be uphill work. I just get bored of twerps with so little understanding of how science works that they think that apparent consensus, and truth, are the same thing, and who think that there is some kind of epistemic equivalence between denying historical fact and questioning and testing scientific models.0 -
We could pay for ecological preserves and reservations.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.0 -
That'll keep the writers of the New York late-night comedy shows busy today...TGOHF2 said:0 -
Sapiens is ok. Homo Deus is just him banging on about animal rights for most of the book.TOPPING said:
Just started Sapiens which as a populist history book is fine.Casino_Royale said:matthiasfromhamburg said:
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").
And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").
These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.
The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.
The rest is policy.
Can't move in the first quarter of the book without him describing historic and pre historic climate change.
Do we know how much is us now and how much them?0 -
Since elements of that bill have been discussed as long ago as 1998, I cannot agree. Moreover, since Extinction Rebellion themselves have dismissed it, I don't think you can claim it as a win for them.OblitusSumMe said:I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.
https://www.ft.com/content/26e8d1e0-dbb3-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
Have a good morning.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-accused-of-watering-down-climate-bill/a-507194410 -
Unlike Hilary Benn claiming last month the Queen should issue a Royal Proclamation under the 1797 Meeting of Parliament Act to bring back Parliament?AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.0 -
The current prorogation resets the clock on the Lords delaying powers and the SNP has no peers.TGOHF2 said:
You forget the polls.rottenborough said:
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.
Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.
He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.
SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.0 -
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!TOPPING said:
Who are these "people"?Foxy said:
It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.felix said:
Did you not notice the first sentence?Foxy said:
Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...Sandpit said:
The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.felix said:
Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.matthiasfromhamburg said:
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
l.
The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.
Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.
You and me. How much are we changing? Really?
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?0 -
I doubt the Lords would vote down a one line bill from the Commons for an election.Yellow_Submarine said:
The current prorogation resets the clock on the Lords delaying powers and the SNP has no peers.TGOHF2 said:
You forget the polls.rottenborough said:
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.
Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.
He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.
SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.0 -
People don’t want a meaningful deterioration in their quality of life.AlastairMeeks said:As usual, it’s and not or. Technology is going to play a big part of the response to the climate change crisis. And so is a big change of mindset about the externalities of our daily activities.
Electric power, smart tech grids and electric cars will get us a long way. Then we have the challenge of renewable central heating, producing beef (by far the worst) without emissions, using AI for more efficient recycling, and renewable fuels for aviation.
So yes, I do see it as largely technological but also feasible. The really hard bits are carbon capture and nuclear fusion.0 -
So we are basing our constitutional principles on a 1950s letter to the Times. And we wonder why we look like a joke to the world.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1181692299828482049
The Queen is about to be dragged into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
This just gets worse and worse.0 -
Well that was fairly wild too. The difference is that one is a backbench MP and the other is formulating a Government position.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Unlike Hilary Benn claiming last month the Queen should issue a Royal Proclamation under the 1797 Meeting of Parliament Act to bring back Parliament?AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.0 -
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)ydoethur said:
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.Pulpstar said:Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/11818028385168015420 -
Sapiens is by far the best of his books.Casino_Royale said:
Sapiens is ok. Homo Deus is just him banging on about animal rights for most of the book.TOPPING said:
Just started Sapiens which as a populist history book is fine.Casino_Royale said:matthiasfromhamburg said:
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").
And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").
These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.
The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.
The rest is policy.
Can't move in the first quarter of the book without him describing historic and pre historic climate change.
Do we know how much is us now and how much them?0 -
Anybody think Benn isn't formulating the Opposition position?AlastairMeeks said:
Well that was fairly wild too. The difference is that one is a backbench MP and the other is formulating a Government position.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Unlike Hilary Benn claiming last month the Queen should issue a Royal Proclamation under the 1797 Meeting of Parliament Act to bring back Parliament?AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.0 -
You're telling a total lie.nico67 said:The mask completely fell off Laura Kuenssberg when she peddled more lines from Tory HQ.
Allegedly as soon as the Benn Act was passed the EU negotiating position hardened .
There were no negotiations at the time of that passing and its only when it did pass that Bozo even looked remotely bothered in getting a deal.
Boris spoke to Berlin and Paris and had the famous "30 days to get a deal" press conference BEFORE the Benn Act was passed.
Had Parliament waited 30 days before acting then they could have been justifiable. They didn't.0 -
The closer we get to the 31st October, the greater the hyperbole.0
-
Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce0 -
It will be by 2070. It’s been a great success.MarqueeMark said:
And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.0 -
XR's position would have been 'end refrigeration or we'll all die', rather than 'develop and switch to less oxidising coolants'.MarqueeMark said:
And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.3 -
Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.AlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
Duplicate post deleted.0
-
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?0
-
There is a channel on Sky called Forces TV. Late at night, when we've finished a box set, and just flicking through the channels before heading to bed it has programmes such as Shelly, Bless This House and Space 1999 on, all in 4.3 aspect ratio. I caught a minute of Bless This house a few nights ago- in black and white, with that weird sort of shadow outline you used to get. Aside from it being crap, it was virtually unwatchable on a 4K telly. No wonder we all had to wear glasses as kids.MarqueeMark said:
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)ydoethur said:
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.Pulpstar said:Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/11818028385168015420 -
Veganism is an ideology.twistedfirestopper3 said:
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!TOPPING said:
Who are these "people"?Foxy said:
It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.felix said:
Did you not notice the first sentence?Foxy said:
Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...Sandpit said:
The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.felix said:
Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.matthiasfromhamburg said:
Only a .Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
l.
The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.
ne.
You and me. How much are we changing? Really?
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
You can switch your gas/electricity supplier to someone like Pure Planet, who use 100% renewable electricity and offset 100% of all their gas and happen to be quite affordable too.
Packaging is starting to change I think and low-cost electric vehicles are about 5-10 years away from being on the market.0 -
I might avoid lettuce but no chance on forgoing flying - ferk that.another_richard said:Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
0 -
TGOHF2 said:
If you go to those countries the amount of litter and the state of their beaches, kerbsides and streetscapes are absolutely shocking.
Gives you a newfound respect for planning laws and Keep Britain Tidy.1 -
The Goodies and Robin of Sherwood are two programs which have very rarely, if ever, been repeated.MarqueeMark said:
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)ydoethur said:
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.Pulpstar said:Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/11818028385168015420 -
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.Yellow_Submarine said:The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
0 -
If it's almost 50 now then it would have been between 70 to 80 and year ago. A third of the recalcitrants have already been eased out so it seems like it has been war gamed.AlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"
Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??
0 -
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.TOPPING said:
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
0 -
The Goodies was heavily repeated in Australia in prime time slots. When moved out there I was surprised how many could quote lines from the Goodies, as easily as Brits of my generation can quote Monty Pythonanother_richard said:
The Goodies and Robin of Sherwood are two programs which have very rarely, if ever, been repeated.MarqueeMark said:
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)ydoethur said:
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.Pulpstar said:Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/11818028385168015420 -
No I don't either. But if Labour and/or Lib Dems oppose it they could slow it down considerably. In this case defeating its purpose. They could also treat it as a Christmas Tree Bill. What would the SNP in the Commons do if it came back with votes at 16 attached ? Or putting people with Settled Status on the same footing as qualifying Commonwealth citizens ? Etc etc.TGOHF2 said:
I doubt the Lords would vote down a one line bill from the Commons for an election.Yellow_Submarine said:
The current prorogation resets the clock on the Lords delaying powers and the SNP has no peers.TGOHF2 said:
You forget the polls.rottenborough said:
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.
Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.
He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.
SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.0 -
That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!AlastairMeeks said:
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.Yellow_Submarine said:The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
0 -
The PM.Stocky said:Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"
Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??
0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/05/huge-rise-us-plastic-waste-shipments-to-poor-countries-china-ban-thailand-malaysia-vietnamCasino_Royale said:TGOHF2 said:
If you go to those countries the amount of litter and the state of their beaches, kerbsides and streetscapes are absolutely shocking.
Gives you a newfound respect for planning laws and Keep Britain Tidy.
before we get too smug about it. ("Let's not start sucking each other's d*cks just yet" - Winston Wolfe).0 -
There must be 25 working days in a general election campaign as a matter of statute. The actual date after that is a matter of royal prerogative (ie Boris Johnson), as @Yellow_Submarine notes.Stocky said:Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"
Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??0 -
If you were the EU, would you negotiate a new deal?
Everything is going to plan. A No-deal has been made illegal so that only leaves the EU/May deal on offer and that's the worst case scenario.
With the MPs on-side, an extension can only produce a new referendum or a revocation. And more time for the electorate to get fed up with the whole thing.
MPs will only honour referenda results they agree with.0 -
4 and 11 January are Saturdays.AlastairMeeks said:
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.Yellow_Submarine said:The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
2 January and 9 January would be Thursdays.0 -
F1: hmm. Whilst the odds are longer for the lower half of the field than the top to 'win' first practice those dastardly Ladbrokes types have noticed there's a typhoon in the weather forecast, so the odds are significantly shorter than usual.1
-
Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.tlg86 said:
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.TOPPING said:
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-494716440 -
Thanks - that will teach me to look at the calendar too quickly. So, yes, I think Jeremy Corbyn can effectively get himself a 9 week campaign if he is so inclined.Philip_Thompson said:
4 and 11 January are Saturdays.AlastairMeeks said:
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.Yellow_Submarine said:The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
2 January and 9 January would be Thursdays.0 -
Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.0 -
They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.Sandpit said:modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,
If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.0 -
Not just a rich country issue either...OblitusSumMe said:
I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.ydoethur said:
They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.OblitusSumMe said:
It's been more thanydoethur said:
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.OblitusSumMe said:
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?ydoethur said:
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.Gardenwalker said:
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
https://www.ft.com/content/26e8d1e0-dbb3-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
https://twitter.com/chilledasad100/status/1180747159886585857?s=192 -
Fpt.viewcode said:
THINGS I HATE ABOUT THE 21ST CENTURY, PART 761somebody said:Sounds like 20 years after making a fantasy with a subversive edge, Verhoeven has decided it was a satire.
=================================
* People who don't realise that Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" is a love-letter to Hammer films[1]
* People who don't get that "Starship Troopers" is a obvious Nazi allegory, despite the fact that Verhoeven said so at the time, dressed Doogie Howser in a black leather cap and overcoat, ripped off Leni Riefenstahl, and considered getting the actors to make Nazi salutes.
[1] Seriously. There's a whole Nostalgia Critic video where he's honestly surprised.
I'm not for a moment denying that Starship Troopers is consciously infused with Nazi imagery, just suggesting that Verhoeven was getting off on it. Nazism didn't get where it is today without people getting off on torch lit parades, black leather and sharp uniforms*. Reframing it currently as a dreadful warning from past or future history is a tad dishonest.
*If anyone feels the need to plop out the thousand-time-made revelation that Hugo Boss made many of the Hitlerite uniforms, please desist because otherwise I would have to have you taken out and given a punishment beating.0 -
No-deal does not "honour" the referendum; it is Leave in extremis, and does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result. "Honouring" the result would have been to agree TMay's deal. The ERG and the DUP ensured that did not happen.CD13 said:If you were the EU, would you negotiate a new deal?
Everything is going to plan. A No-deal has been made illegal so that only leaves the EU/May deal on offer and that's the worst case scenario.
With the MPs on-side, an extension can only produce a new referendum or a revocation. And more time for the electorate to get fed up with the whole thing.
MPs will only honour referenda results they agree with.0 -
Graphs on fires in Brazil:tlg86 said:
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.TOPPING said:
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49515462
The second is revealing - the area of Brazilian Amazon burnt in 2019 looks like it could be less than it was in 2017 or 2015 and less than half of what was burnt in 2004, 2005 and 2007.0 -
Theresa May's Deal will not get through as the ERG will oppose the GB backstop and the DUP will oppose the Northern Ireland backstop and barely any Labour no opposition MPs will vote for it either. The proposed Boris plan has more chance of getting through the current Commons as the ERG and DUP will vote for it, the only problem being the EU will not accept it.
Only 280 MPs voted for EUref2 in the indicative votes too0 -
Well this screws up my Silver Wedding Anniversary Party
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/11818301249850818620 -
The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PMStocky said:Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.0 -
I know that we all think very little of our politicians, but does anyone seriously think that an election campaign running over Christmas is going to somehow endear them to us any more?nichomar said:
That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!AlastairMeeks said:
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.Yellow_Submarine said:The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.
If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.0 -
Boris would settle for absolutely anything that massaged his ego or sucked his cock.another_richard said:
Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.AlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376641 -
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who willAlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
or just kept him in No 10.Nigel_Foremain said:
Boris would settle for absolutely anything that massaged his ego or sucked his cock.another_richard said:
Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.AlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
Over a period of two days last week Angola had roughly three times more fires than Brazil, according to data Bloomberg news agency obtained from Weather Source.Sandpit said:
Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.tlg86 said:
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.TOPPING said:
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49471644
The data said there were 6,902 fires in Angola and 3,395 fires in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, compared with just 2,127 fires in Brazil.0 -
Ideally while simultaneously achieving the other two items.eek said:
or just kept him in No 10.Nigel_Foremain said:
Boris would settle for absolutely anything that massaged his ego or sucked his cock.another_richard said:
Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.AlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
Do you think that the EU is going to be particularly inclined to set timetables that suit Boris Johnson?Sandpit said:
I know that we all think very little of our politicians, but does anyone seriously think that an election campaign running over Christmas is going to somehow endear them to us any more?nichomar said:
That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!AlastairMeeks said:
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.Yellow_Submarine said:The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.
If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.0 -
Cummings operates with Boris' blessing. Getting angry at him is as much displacement activity as anything parliament has done to avoid making a decision.rottenborough said:
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.0 -
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!HYUFD said:
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who willAlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
I thought Boris operates with Dom's blessing?kle4 said:
Cummings operates with Boris' blessing. Getting angry at him is as much displacement activity as anything parliament has done to avoid making a decision.rottenborough said:
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.AlastairMeeks said:
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.rottenborough said:
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.Andy_JS said:What are the Lascelles Principles?
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.0 -
Agreed. Why would Ms. Swinson, seeing they have a unique opportunity to replace Labour, do that? As for the Conservative rebels, Labour would not give them a free run in a GE. We have to remember that their careers trump all.HYUFD said:
The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PMStocky said:Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.
0 -
The F1 Mercedes is now more than 50% efficient at turning fuel into power. The previous generation of F1 cars were somewhere around 30% and road cars are considerably less efficient.Dura_Ace said:
They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.Sandpit said:modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,
If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
Current F1 cars use 105kg of fuel (about 130l) for a c.300km race. Around 7mpg which is context is quite amazing.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target
F1's problem is that they're not shouting about this from the rooftops, it's an astonishing leap forward in engine technology.
It's filtering down into road cars, such that the new AMG-A35 has a 300bhp, 2 litre petrol engine yet does 38.7mpg.
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-features/bmw-m135i-vs--mercedes-amg-a35/410690 -
Mr Foremain,
"... does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result."
Illogical.
The winner of a general election is the one with a majority. If Jezza wins, he won't include some of the Tory or LD manifesto to reach out to the losing side.
The referendum is designed to produce a yes/no verdict. If you want to be sympathetic to the losers, you could suggest a run-off between two sorts of Leave. Not as will happen, a run-off between two sorts of Remain.0 -
Parliament to sit on Saturday according to sky news is it possible when prorogued?0
-
I don't believe them. Put 'we want a deal but if not then no deal's and they'll pretend a deal has a chance and it's ok to not rebel.AlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.another_richard said:Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?
I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.
A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.1 -
No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal.Nigel_Foremain said:
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!HYUFD said:
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who willAlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664
As someone who refuses to respect the winning Leave vote come what may you are hardly in a position to lecture about democracy0 -
Parliament to sit on Saturday according to sky news is it possible when prorogued?
She’s just clarified it’s what I would have thought.eek said:
Nope on Saturday 19th (after the summit). See my earlier comment about how happy that makes me..nichomar said:Parliament to sit on Saturday according to sky news is it possible when prorogued?
0 -
Quite a lot of people were talking about it (as evidenced by the BBC having that article up).Sandpit said:
Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.tlg86 said:
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.TOPPING said:
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.SouthamObserver said:
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.Casino_Royale said:
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49471644
It's all the same globe, and dismissing particular because they disproportionate attention (or inattention) is foolish.1 -
Exactly, Swinson wants the LDs to overtake Corbyn Labour not prop up Corbyn Labour and while Tory rebels may defect to or do deals with the LDs they will not with Corbyn Labourbeentheredonethat said:
Agreed. Why would Ms. Swinson, seeing they have a unique opportunity to replace Labour, do that? As for the Conservative rebels, Labour would not give them a free run in a GE. We have to remember that their careers trump all.HYUFD said:
The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PMStocky said:Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.0 -
It won't be 50 but a further number will have had their credulity stretched beyond breaking point.kle4 said:
I don't believe them. Put 'we want a deal but if not then no deal's and they'll pretend a deal has a chance and it's ok to not rebel.AlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11818254757163376640 -
Likewise, not growing apples in England, shipping them to Spain for polishing, shipping them back, and declaring them to be "local".OblitusSumMe said:
Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.another_richard said:Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?
I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.
A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.0 -
Which have done a lot of the legwork to compare how green different electricity providers who claim to be green are.Casino_Royale said:
Veganism is an ideology.twistedfirestopper3 said:
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!TOPPING said:
Who are these "people"?
You and me. How much are we changing? Really?
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
You can switch your gas/electricity supplier to someone like Pure Planet, who use 100% renewable electricity and offset 100% of all their gas and happen to be quite affordable too.
Packaging is starting to change I think and low-cost electric vehicles are about 5-10 years away from being on the market.0 -
Your argument boils down to that when given a clash between an imbecilic policy, and MPs who refuse to accept it as a manifesto commitment, you get rid of the MPs (something which in itself requires a degree of handwaving).HYUFD said:
No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal...Nigel_Foremain said:
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!HYUFD said:
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who willAlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664
There is an alternative, and less destructive means of solving that clash.1 -
... whereas the Tesla Model 3 does 130 MPGe and is also quite fast.Sandpit said:
The F1 Mercedes is now more than 50% efficient at turning fuel into power. The previous generation of F1 cars were somewhere around 30% and road cars are considerably less efficient.Dura_Ace said:
They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.Sandpit said:modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,
If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
Current F1 cars use 105kg of fuel (about 130l) for a c.300km race. Around 7mpg which is context is quite amazing.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target
F1's problem is that they're not shouting about this from the rooftops, it's an astonishing leap forward in engine technology.
It's filtering down into road cars, such that the new AMG-A35 has a 300bhp, 2 litre petrol engine yet does 38.7mpg.
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-features/bmw-m135i-vs--mercedes-amg-a35/41069
https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2018/mpg/0 -
You can not have a general election on 2nd of January as it is a Bank Holiday in Scotland.0
-
Well my views on Brexit, unlike yours may I say, have never been hypocritical. Brexit is a bad idea period. As for "respecting" the vote, no-deal certainly does not do that as it was a very marginal win on a very dodgy prospectus. The only mandate for the stupidity of no-deal needs to be won by a fresh referendum, which ,as you know, would be lost, so will not be offered by Bozo.HYUFD said:
No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal.Nigel_Foremain said:
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!HYUFD said:
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who willAlastairMeeks said:Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664
As someone who refuses to respect the winning Leave vote come what may you are hardly in a position to lecture about democracy
So, as a dedicated fanboy of Bozo, you will fall in behind the mendacious approach of pretending that all people who might be scared into voting Tory are backing no-deal. Your idea of "democracy", I am sorry to say has the all the depth of understanding of the simpleton.0 -
Enviable awareness and understanding if I may say.twistedfirestopper3 said:
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!TOPPING said:
Who are these "people"?Foxy said:
It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.felix said:
Did you not notice the first sentence?Foxy said:
Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...Sandpit said:
The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.felix said:
Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.matthiasfromhamburg said:
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.Nigelb said:A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
l.
The problem is that most of the evangelical activists weaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.
Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.
You and me. How much are we changing? Really?
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?0 -
Rubbish, leaving with Mrs Mays deal is still Leaving. It's not a sort of Remain.CD13 said:Mr Foremain,
"... does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result."
Illogical.
The winner of a general election is the one with a majority. If Jezza wins, he won't include some of the Tory or LD manifesto to reach out to the losing side.
The referendum is designed to produce a yes/no verdict. If you want to be sympathetic to the losers, you could suggest a run-off between two sorts of Leave. Not as will happen, a run-off between two sorts of Remain.0 -
The bar I sit in for sundown drinks faces a large field which normally grows celery at this time of year 90% of their produce is bagged locally in telco branded packaging and shipped to the UK. They have just stopped planting for the last week and activity has stopped. Not sure if it is coincidental but will watch closely what happens next.mwadams said:
Likewise, not growing apples in England, shipping them to Spain for polishing, shipping them back, and declaring them to be "local".OblitusSumMe said:
Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.another_richard said:Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?
I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.
A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.0
This discussion has been closed.