Welcome to the world of volatility – politicalbetting.com

bondegezou said:

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

My conflict coordinates are 75% Palestine, 80.56% Ukraine. I don't think that's wrong, but I'm not certain about the value of this test. I tried to answer questions in the abstract, but it was very obvious which questions related to what Israeli/Palestinian/Russian/Ukrainian claims.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kjh said:

We have LD branded spatulas for delivering (although I think it is namby pamby personally to use one). Someone has just had his nicked by a dog. The owners are going to return and wonder why the LDs have started delivering cooking equipment.

The spatulas are for pushing leaflets through letterboxes surely?

When it comes to letterboxes experience tells you never put your fingers where you cannot see them.

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

What? No - I don't want to keep emitting pollution, the exact opposite. And I do want to invest in clean technology - but we can't keep doing what we're doing and just swap out fossil fuels for renewables; we'd still have massive problems. We have to tackle overproduction and overconsumption - deforestation for farming, the issues of topsoil erosion, as well as other pollutants such as those in water. This isn't as simple as slowly transition away from oil and gas to solar, wind and waves - we will have to actively change how energy and resources are produced and distributed, both for efficiency as well as a moral imperative to not just leave the poor to suffer the negative impacts of the changes to the climate we've already caused.

No we don't have to tackle overproduction and overconsumption, we need clean technologies.

With clean technologies we could double everyone's production and consumption and there'd still be no emissions as anything times zero equals zero.

There is no reason to reduce production or consumption, only emissions. Clean science and technology means we can and should be able to increase production cleanly to improve living standards while protecting the environment.

Pissing about reducing production while keeping emissions does nothing for the environment.

I'm not saying we should keep emissions, I'm saying we are never going to have a 100% clean production method. The carbon capture we have at the moment, at it's best, captures around 40% of CO2. The only way to get to reduce the amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere to a point where we can give ourselves the time to manage the consequences of what we have already done is by reducing production and consumption. and the only way to do that is to understand that the states and individuals that overconsume and hoard wealth can no longer to afford to do that.

No, any reduction in consumption or production is going to be fiddling while the planet burns. Its a bad joke, not a serious suggestion.

We don't need massive carbon capture and we don't need to reduce consumption or production, we need 100% clean production methods. Which we are working on and investing in.

Develop 100% clean production techniques and we can have as much production and consumption as we like - and so can the rest of the planet.

And while you may dream of cutting other people's size of their pie, the rest of the planet will not voluntarily cut their own size of the pie. Quite the opposite, the rest of the planet is singularly focused on growing their pie.

What the rest of the world will do is adopt 100% clean production techniques that we develop and adopt too.

Indeed 100% clean technologies can help grow the pie. Extracting oil and gas is expensive, if we can tap freely available, renewable, natural resources like wind and sunshine to get our power instead of importing expensive consumable commodities, then we can invest to grow while helping the planet.

You are not serious about the planet.

I'm not serious? You seem to be suggesting that developing 100% clean production lines is just around the corner, and we are nowhere near them. That moving our entire infrastructure to energy produced through clean methods can and will happen soon and using 100% clean methods themselves. Part of the problem we face is that to get to a clean tech future we do need to do some extractivism now - and we can't offset that yet. Globally, instead of trying to manage our emissions at the point we realised they were a problem to give us time to deal with the problem, we kept burning more and more fossil fuels. Because the logic of growth growth growth and tech will save us meant that it would be a problem solved in the future so it doesn't matter what we do now. But that hasn't happened and we are barrelling towards catastrophe.

TimS said:

kjh said:

We have LD branded spatulas for delivering (although I think it is namby pamby personally to use one). Someone has just had his nicked by a dog. The owners are going to return and wonder why the LDs have started delivering cooking equipment.

What's the meaning of spatulas?

TimS said:

kjh said:

We have LD branded spatulas for delivering (although I think it is namby pamby personally to use one). Someone has just had his nicked by a dog. The owners are going to return and wonder why the LDs have started delivering cooking equipment.

What's the meaning of spatulas?

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

Heathener said:

OMG I’m still laughing at that James Cracknell post

This campaign will enter the annals and for as long as there are humans left on earth, still they will refer back to it

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

bondegezou said:

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

My conflict coordinates are 75% Palestine, 80.56% Ukraine. I don't think that's wrong, but I'm not certain about the value of this test. I tried to answer questions in the abstract, but it was very obvious which questions related to what Israeli/Palestinian/Russian/Ukrainian claims.

Indeed, I thought similar. I agree with where I ended up and will use my image of the day on it, but not sure how meaningful it is.


Fun test though, thank you TimS for sharing it.

MattW said:

Taking the Fifth.

This is fun: Sir Winston "Walter Mitty" Churchill. The medals Churchill was not entitled to wear - that he wore.

https://youtu.be/s1VCnnCQP3E

Mark Felton is a small-s socialist.

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Peter_the_Punter said:

FPT

madmacs said:

» show previous quotes
Cheltenham is awash with Lib Dem posters, a few Tory and seen no Labour posters. Also many leaflets, letters etc from the yellow perils. Labour clearly focusing on Gloucester




Thanks Mac. Can you please keep posting your reports.

There's an abundance of LD diamonds in Winchcombe, and even more in Bishop Cleeve, which is their stronghold in Tewkesbury constituency. Seen one Labour poster in our High Street, and that's it. Have now had leaflets from every candidate except the Labour lady. Apparently she skipped a radio hustings programme last week. Unfortunately the bookies seem to have cottoned on now to her being a bit of a no-show and the bet which I so proudly trumpeted on here is no longer such good value, but at least I can feel that I have not led our brethren astray.

Best guess is that Laurence Robertson holds on by a couple of thousand so his odds of 4/9 are probably about right.

Peter_the_Punter said:

FPT

madmacs said:

» show previous quotes
Cheltenham is awash with Lib Dem posters, a few Tory and seen no Labour posters. Also many leaflets, letters etc from the yellow perils. Labour clearly focusing on Gloucester




Thanks Mac. Can you please keep posting your reports.

There's an abundance of LD diamonds in Winchcombe, and even more in Bishop Cleeve, which is their stronghold in Tewkesbury constituency. Seen one Labour poster in our High Street, and that's it. Have now had leaflets from every candidate except the Labour lady. Apparently she skipped a radio hustings programme last week. Unfortunately the bookies seem to have cottoned on now to her being a bit of a no-show and the bet which I so proudly trumpeted on here is no longer such good value, but at least I can feel that I have not led our brethren astray.

Best guess is that Laurence Robertson holds on by a couple of thousand so his odds of 4/9 are probably about right.

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

TimS said:

First.

And FPT because it took me a while to write

Here in Lewisham we got the usual one-off dump of leaflets today via the postman. So in total we have

Vicky Foxcroft (Labour). Slick, standardised and professionally produced Labour leaflet. Little tick-box questionnaire about what we'd like Labour to do in the constituency. 8/10 for the leaflet, only 4/10 for actually being visible or active between elections.

Two from Jean Branch (Lib Dem). Why 2 leaflets, Jean? This is Lewisham North, Labour rosette on donkey territory. Spend your time helping Bobby Dean in Carshalton & Wallington. OK, reasonably personal leaflets but message isn't clear. 6/10

Wrong leaflet from Reform (Marian Newton, Lewisham W and W Dulwich. Should be Edward Powell Lewisham North). Slick turquoise one pager with Nigel and Richard. Stop the boats etc. I'll begrudgingly have to give this 8/10 but with a 2 point deduction to 6 for getting the constituency wrong

[Big] John [Owls] Lloyd (Alliance for green socialism). Quaintly homemade vibe. Classic old trot photo, looking miserable. "John considers Starmer to be as bad as the Tories. The same right wing policies at home....failure to condemn Israeli war crimes in Palestine". SKS fans please explain.

Gwenton Dennis (Workers Party of GB). Another one going to the wrong constituency - he's Lewisham West & West Dulwich too. Maybe the royal mail messed it up. Similar content to John Lloyd but much slicker production values. No mention here of the traditionalist themes Galloway used in Rochdale. Rather touching dedication and picture of candidate's late mum and sister on the back. 7/10

No Green (surprising, must be on the way) or Conservative leaflets yet.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kjh said:

We have LD branded spatulas for delivering (although I think it is namby pamby personally to use one). Someone has just had his nicked by a dog. The owners are going to return and wonder why the LDs have started delivering cooking equipment.

The spatulas are for pushing leaflets through letterboxes surely?

When it comes to letterboxes experience tells you never put your fingers where you cannot see them.

Pro_Rata said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

bondegezou said:

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

My conflict coordinates are 75% Palestine, 80.56% Ukraine. I don't think that's wrong, but I'm not certain about the value of this test. I tried to answer questions in the abstract, but it was very obvious which questions related to what Israeli/Palestinian/Russian/Ukrainian claims.

Indeed, I thought similar. I agree with where I ended up and will use my image of the day on it, but not sure how meaningful it is.


Fun test though, thank you TimS for sharing it.

I've come out as completely neutral on Russia / Ukraine and halfway into the Palestinian half of the field. That is way out

Trouble with general principles is that, for example, yes, some of the things Russia say they are doing can in some circumstances be legitimate, except for the fact they are talking total rubbish, and answering for the general principle doesn't say whether you believe that principle applies in a given circumstance.

madmacs said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

FPT

madmacs said:

» show previous quotes
Cheltenham is awash with Lib Dem posters, a few Tory and seen no Labour posters. Also many leaflets, letters etc from the yellow perils. Labour clearly focusing on Gloucester




Thanks Mac. Can you please keep posting your reports.

There's an abundance of LD diamonds in Winchcombe, and even more in Bishop Cleeve, which is their stronghold in Tewkesbury constituency. Seen one Labour poster in our High Street, and that's it. Have now had leaflets from every candidate except the Labour lady. Apparently she skipped a radio hustings programme last week. Unfortunately the bookies seem to have cottoned on now to her being a bit of a no-show and the bet which I so proudly trumpeted on here is no longer such good value, but at least I can feel that I have not led our brethren astray.

Best guess is that Laurence Robertson holds on by a couple of thousand so his odds of 4/9 are probably about right.

Peter_the_Punter said:

FPT

madmacs said:

» show previous quotes
Cheltenham is awash with Lib Dem posters, a few Tory and seen no Labour posters. Also many leaflets, letters etc from the yellow perils. Labour clearly focusing on Gloucester




Thanks Mac. Can you please keep posting your reports.

There's an abundance of LD diamonds in Winchcombe, and even more in Bishop Cleeve, which is their stronghold in Tewkesbury constituency. Seen one Labour poster in our High Street, and that's it. Have now had leaflets from every candidate except the Labour lady. Apparently she skipped a radio hustings programme last week. Unfortunately the bookies seem to have cottoned on now to her being a bit of a no-show and the bet which I so proudly trumpeted on here is no longer such good value, but at least I can feel that I have not led our brethren astray.

Best guess is that Laurence Robertson holds on by a couple of thousand so his odds of 4/9 are probably about right.

Just to add I live in Gloucester but have been in Cheltenham a lot. There are a number of Lib Dem posters in the Gloucester and Cheltenham wards which are in Tewkesbury constituency (haven't been to Prestbury which is more Conservative. There are, I think , nine Lib Dem councillors. one independent and one green in the five wards in Gloucester and Cheltenham which are now in Tewkesbury constituency. I think the Conservatives have an outside chance of beating Labour in Gloucester, purely because the "sitting" Tory is a good constituency MP, Alex Chalk is almost certainly toast and I agree that Robertson is just favourite in Tewkesbury. I may be wrong but he does not seem to have been a great constituency MP. Safe seat syndrome?

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pro_Rata said:

Heathener said:

OMG I’m still laughing at that James Cracknell post

This campaign will enter the annals and for as long as there are humans left on earth, still they will refer back to it

On the Tory side it's been less a campaign and more an attempted reenactment of the Erfurt Latrine Disaster.

I had to google Erfurt Latrine Disaster.

I wish I hadn't.

jamesdoyle said:

You know those sculpture trails cities do, where they have an animal shape and different artists decorate it, and they're installed all around the city or town?
Chichester (& Arundel) are just about to start their next one, and as well as the large street sculptures there will be smaller ones to go in shop windows. I'm having one, and it's going to be delivered today.
The trail is called The Big Hoot.

So later on today, or possibly tomorrow, I will legitimately be able to say I have my own owl. And Labour haven't even won yet. Imagine!

Heathener said:

OMG I’m still laughing at that James Cracknell post

This campaign will enter the annals and for as long as there are humans left on earth, still they will refer back to it

SandyRentool said:

Green Party talking about dentistry.

Surely there are plenty of topics to do with environmentalism they could be getting their teeth into instead?

SandyRentool said:

Green Party talking about dentistry.

Surely there are plenty of topics to do with environmentalism they could be getting their teeth into instead?

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

What? No - I don't want to keep emitting pollution, the exact opposite. And I do want to invest in clean technology - but we can't keep doing what we're doing and just swap out fossil fuels for renewables; we'd still have massive problems. We have to tackle overproduction and overconsumption - deforestation for farming, the issues of topsoil erosion, as well as other pollutants such as those in water. This isn't as simple as slowly transition away from oil and gas to solar, wind and waves - we will have to actively change how energy and resources are produced and distributed, both for efficiency as well as a moral imperative to not just leave the poor to suffer the negative impacts of the changes to the climate we've already caused.

No we don't have to tackle overproduction and overconsumption, we need clean technologies.

With clean technologies we could double everyone's production and consumption and there'd still be no emissions as anything times zero equals zero.

There is no reason to reduce production or consumption, only emissions. Clean science and technology means we can and should be able to increase production cleanly to improve living standards while protecting the environment.

Pissing about reducing production while keeping emissions does nothing for the environment.

I'm not saying we should keep emissions, I'm saying we are never going to have a 100% clean production method. The carbon capture we have at the moment, at it's best, captures around 40% of CO2. The only way to get to reduce the amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere to a point where we can give ourselves the time to manage the consequences of what we have already done is by reducing production and consumption. and the only way to do that is to understand that the states and individuals that overconsume and hoard wealth can no longer to afford to do that.

No, any reduction in consumption or production is going to be fiddling while the planet burns. Its a bad joke, not a serious suggestion.

We don't need massive carbon capture and we don't need to reduce consumption or production, we need 100% clean production methods. Which we are working on and investing in.

Develop 100% clean production techniques and we can have as much production and consumption as we like - and so can the rest of the planet.

And while you may dream of cutting other people's size of their pie, the rest of the planet will not voluntarily cut their own size of the pie. Quite the opposite, the rest of the planet is singularly focused on growing their pie.

What the rest of the world will do is adopt 100% clean production techniques that we develop and adopt too.

Indeed 100% clean technologies can help grow the pie. Extracting oil and gas is expensive, if we can tap freely available, renewable, natural resources like wind and sunshine to get our power instead of importing expensive consumable commodities, then we can invest to grow while helping the planet.

You are not serious about the planet.

I'm not serious? You seem to be suggesting that developing 100% clean production lines is just around the corner, and we are nowhere near them. That moving our entire infrastructure to energy produced through clean methods can and will happen soon and using 100% clean methods themselves. Part of the problem we face is that to get to a clean tech future we do need to do some extractivism now - and we can't offset that yet. Globally, instead of trying to manage our emissions at the point we realised they were a problem to give us time to deal with the problem, we kept burning more and more fossil fuels. Because the logic of growth growth growth and tech will save us meant that it would be a problem solved in the future so it doesn't matter what we do now. But that hasn't happened and we are barrelling towards catastrophe.

When do you expect this catastrophe to arrive and what will it look like.

I mean, much of it is already arriving - with the lesser effects of rising global temperatures being more volatile weather, more extreme weather, places suffering from great droughts and then flooding. People are already concerned about the AMOC and the Gulf Stream. Farmers are already raising concerns about crop production. We are already experiencing things that some scientists thought would be decades away. And that's at almost 1.5 above the pre Industrial base line.

Every step closer to 2 degrees above the pre Industrial base line puts us at risk of irreversible tipping points - polar ice sheets melting, loss of permafrost, Amazon loss, monsoon season shifts. Any of these irreversible tipping points will send global shockwaves as we see mass displacement beyond anything already seen, land either uninhabitable or no longer usable for production (whether that is farming or otherwise).

And yet you don't advocate for 100% (net) clean production techniques and net zero emissions, while I do.

Instead you want to fiddle while the planet burns, playing pretend redistribution of resources, rather than fix the problem.

We would all like 100% net clean production techniques and emissions.

Thinking it is remotely possible even if someone cracks fusion (the energy holy grail) is dangerous utopian nonsense.

Even if we didn't use it for fuel, there are a million and one other things we use oil for, from plastics to fertilizer.

So we would still need to extract most of it and distill it to get the byproducts. Then just burn off the petrol and gas if no one wanted it for fuel (which used to happen in a big way with gas before international LPG shipments took off in a big way).

Ghedebrav said:

SandyRentool said:

Green Party talking about dentistry.

Surely there are plenty of topics to do with environmentalism they could be getting their teeth into instead?

Is there a molar in Green Party HQ?

Chris said:

Election coverage on both BBC and ITV websites seems to be completely dominated by the Tory betting question.

Ten days before polling day - with postal ballots now being completed and returned - and the dominant issue is Tories being investigated for misconduct and the usual questions about why Sunak isn't taking action against them.

It may not be entirely fair, but could Sunak have imagined, when he decided to jump, that this campaign would turn into such an absolute nightmare?

Nunu5 said:

SandyRentool said:

Green Party talking about dentistry.

Surely there are plenty of topics to do with environmentalism they could be getting their teeth into instead?

Trying to get a good policy out of them is like pulling teeth

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

It is shocking that it took COVID-19 to teach us how much we can use online calls for our international collaborations, and the vast majority of collaboration is now done online. (Most meetings I have with colleagues at the same university as me I do on Teams, rather than getting us all to meet up.)

However, I don't think that's an excuse for MisterBedfordshire or anyone else to believe or push batshit crazy conspiracy theories.

Pro_Rata said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

bondegezou said:

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

My conflict coordinates are 75% Palestine, 80.56% Ukraine. I don't think that's wrong, but I'm not certain about the value of this test. I tried to answer questions in the abstract, but it was very obvious which questions related to what Israeli/Palestinian/Russian/Ukrainian claims.

Indeed, I thought similar. I agree with where I ended up and will use my image of the day on it, but not sure how meaningful it is.


Fun test though, thank you TimS for sharing it.

I've come out as completely neutral on Russia / Ukraine and halfway into the Palestinian half of the field. That is way out

Trouble with general principles is that, for example, yes, some of the things Russia say they are doing can in some circumstances be legitimate, except for the fact they are talking total rubbish, and answering for the general principle doesn't say whether you believe that principle applies in a given circumstance.

MisterBedfordshire said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

It is shocking that it took COVID-19 to teach us how much we can use online calls for our international collaborations, and the vast majority of collaboration is now done online. (Most meetings I have with colleagues at the same university as me I do on Teams, rather than getting us all to meet up.)

However, I don't think that's an excuse for MisterBedfordshire or anyone else to believe or push batshit crazy conspiracy theories.

Since when is the rich wanting the pie for themselves and the crumbs for the plebs a batshit crazy conspiracy theory?

Its been the norm throughout most of recorded history

williamglenn said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/9andrewmcdonald/status/1805259442499305729?s=46

Interesting exchange in the Facebook comments under this video, between Tory candidate James Cracknell and one of his fans

"Who knows who will be leading the party come 5th July", Tory candidate Cracknell said — adding a winking smiley face

Would they need a leader with the number of MPs they'll have? They could be the coxless fours.

FF43 said:

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

Very pro Ukraine and somewhat pro Palestine in my case. Which I guess is about right, even though I think it's complicated and the questions somewhat simplistic.

FF43 said:

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

Very pro Ukraine and somewhat pro Palestine in my case. Which I guess is about right, even though I think it's complicated and the questions somewhat simplistic.

TimS said:

First.

And FPT because it took me a while to write

Here in Lewisham we got the usual one-off dump of leaflets today via the postman. So in total we have

Vicky Foxcroft (Labour). Slick, standardised and professionally produced Labour leaflet. Little tick-box questionnaire about what we'd like Labour to do in the constituency. 8/10 for the leaflet, only 4/10 for actually being visible or active between elections.

Two from Jean Branch (Lib Dem). Why 2 leaflets, Jean? This is Lewisham North, Labour rosette on donkey territory. Spend your time helping Bobby Dean in Carshalton & Wallington. OK, reasonably personal leaflets but message isn't clear. 6/10

Wrong leaflet from Reform (Marian Newton, Lewisham W and W Dulwich. Should be Edward Powell Lewisham North). Slick turquoise one pager with Nigel and Richard. Stop the boats etc. I'll begrudgingly have to give this 8/10 but with a 2 point deduction to 6 for getting the constituency wrong

[Big] John [Owls] Lloyd (Alliance for green socialism). Quaintly homemade vibe. Classic old trot photo, looking miserable. "John considers Starmer to be as bad as the Tories. The same right wing policies at home....failure to condemn Israeli war crimes in Palestine". SKS fans please explain.

Gwenton Dennis (Workers Party of GB). Another one going to the wrong constituency - he's Lewisham West & West Dulwich too. Maybe the royal mail messed it up. Similar content to John Lloyd but much slicker production values. No mention here of the traditionalist themes Galloway used in Rochdale. Rather touching dedication and picture of candidate's late mum and sister on the back. 7/10

No Green (surprising, must be on the way) or Conservative leaflets yet.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Ghedebrav said:

SandyRentool said:

Green Party talking about dentistry.

Surely there are plenty of topics to do with environmentalism they could be getting their teeth into instead?

Is there a molar in Green Party HQ?

Just filling in, I expect.

more wisdom required i think

Carnyx said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Ghedebrav said:

SandyRentool said:

Green Party talking about dentistry.

Surely there are plenty of topics to do with environmentalism they could be getting their teeth into instead?

Is there a molar in Green Party HQ?

Just filling in, I expect.

more wisdom required i think

Get to the roots of the matter, too. Might reach a cusp of debate in the next few years the way things have already gone.

Farooq said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.

It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

Phil said:

NB. On the Letby retrial. I was fairly neutral on the whole “Letby is innocent” thing, leaning pretty strongly towards a “there was a long court case & the jury saw all the evidence & got to make their judgement” position but this kind of thing is making me question that:

https://x.com/LucyLetbyTrials/status/1804980240139366627

Obviously this is a pro-Letby Twitter account, but seriously? The evidence in the original trial /reversed/ the entry & exit of every single person involved? So key witnesses in the original trial claimed “very strong recollections” of things that the entry / exit records suggest simply didn’t happen?

WTF were the police doing?

Farooq said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.

It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...

Farooq said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024

https://x.com/njones179/status/1805125649431961949

I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.

I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.