Violent Climate change lefty’s..

[Imploding Turtle]

My response team has been running at 25% under strength all week, to facilitate this protest. And this is in the midst of a knife crime epidemic which is not letting up. We had a shop keeper stabbed yesterday by 6 teenagers stealing cigarettes.

Immediate grade calls are not being met because there are simply no officers to deal. 10 years of austerity have left no contingency. The cupboard is bare.

I absolutely agree that something needs to be done about climate change, but this isn’t the way. It’s members of the public in genuine need of the emergency services, small business owners, and people going about their daily business most impacted by this.

Your beef is with the government for not funding you properly. Just because the government isn't finding you properly does not mean the rest of the public should facilitate their lack of funding by refusing to protest. And by the way, this argument your making that the public should protest less is counter productive to your case because if the government knows that they can restrict protests by making it so that the police aren't equipped to deal with protests then they're more likely to defund you, not less.

Whether you mean to or not you're kinda scapegoating protesters.

[Stayingup]

Whilst we are closing down coal mines and moving away from fossil fuels the Chinese and Indians are increasing the use of them. As I just read these probably unemployed professional protesters should get to Beijing with their protests. Interesting it would be to see how the authorities there would take to them glueing themselves to the walls of the Forbidden City
Having personally seen the treatment of protesters in Tiananmen in 90's I think I guess the answer.

[Paul Waine]

Yes, you did.

Hi Greenmile,

maybe you would like to read it all again? I've underlined the key bit that you appear to have missed.

Do you think Andrew's statement was that the (UK) government was about all the world, or just the UK?

If you'd like to check the facts, my guess is you will find some info on British Heart Foundation site. It's also been quoted in the (reputable) press, as well, on a number of occasions.

AndrewJB wrote:
The government reckons that between twenty-eight and thirty-six thousand people die each year as a result of air pollution. Plastic has made its way to every corner of the land and sea, and we’re told we have just twelve years before some of the changes to the climate could become irreversible for ten thousand years or more; yet we’re told it’s the people who protest against this catastrophe who are the real problem. There are newspapers who print this stuff, and they’re read by millions of people.


Hi Andrew, re air pollution, I guess you know that that was because Blair/Brown promoted the use of diesel (rather than petrol) because it had lower carbon emissions - but they didn't think that the extra nox mattered.

We need economic advancement to be able to afford the means to combat climate change. That's the challenge. no easy answers.

The best thing this latest lot can do is get their children back to school and learn how to make the changes that are required.

[bobinho]

I hope that’s natural glue they used made from melted down horses and not some chemical **** made in a factory using god knows how much energy and transport to get it to a shop, the hypocritical *****.

[Paul Waine]

See? Utterly useless. Right out of the gate you're misrepresenting.

Hi IT, you didn't respond last time I asked you to explain how a VAT reduction puts money into the fossil fuel industry.

Do you understand how VAT works? Or, is there another reason why you are ducking this debate?

As always, I like to keep my discussions "respectful." Thanks.

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile,

maybe you would like to read it all again? I've underlined the key bit that you appear to have missed.

Do you think Andrew's statement was that the (UK) government was about all the world, or just the UK?

If you'd like to check the facts, my guess is you will find some info on British Heart Foundation site. It's also been quoted in the (reputable) press, as well, on a number of occasions.

AndrewJB wrote:
The government reckons that between twenty-eight and thirty-six thousand people die each year as a result of air pollution. Plastic has made its way to every corner of the land and sea, and we’re told we have just twelve years before some of the changes to the climate could become irreversible for ten thousand years or more; yet we’re told it’s the people who protest against this catastrophe who are the real problem. There are newspapers who print this stuff, and they’re read by millions of people.


Hi Andrew, re air pollution, I guess you know that that was because Blair/Brown promoted the use of diesel (rather than petrol) because it had lower carbon emissions - but they didn't think that the extra nox mattered.

We need economic advancement to be able to afford the means to combat climate change. That's the challenge. no easy answers.

The best thing this latest lot can do is get their children back to school and learn how to make the changes that are required.

So it’s just everyone in the UK who’s died as a result of air pollution that you’re blaming New Labour for (as long as we presume that airborne pollutants respect national boundaries). I stand corrected.

It’s still a ludicrous thing to say though.

FWIW you almost have a point about the requirement for economic advancement, but that only really works if “we” are part of the third world, which we aren’t yet, despite the Tories’ best efforts. Give it time, though.

[Paul Waine]

Having personally seen the treatment of protesters in Tiananmen in 90's I think I guess the answer.

Hi Stayingup, Tiananmen Square protests - and the Chinese's army's response - was in 1989.

[Erasmus]

As always, the behaviour of individuals and their personal integrity is of little importance. I would imagine that the protesters make more of an effort than most people to avoid ways of living that add to climate change, but it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is the issue they are protesting about, the problems for future generations that our present ways of life are almost certainly going to cause. Simply having a go at the protesters is not a response to that issue. If we have any belief in climate science, then the point they are making is a valid one. Drastic changes in our economy and lifestyle are essential and I can't see any reason why anyone should disagree over that.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, you didn't respond last time I asked you to explain how a VAT reduction puts money into the fossil fuel industry.

Do you understand how VAT works? Or, is there another reason why you are ducking this debate?

As always, I like to keep my discussions "respectful." Thanks.

Any tax break that makes your product cheaper for the public to purchase is a subsidy. I've explained this to you before and you refused to accept this fact, i had no interest in telling you again. But, then you accused me of something (again) because that's apparently what you do now.



"As always, I like to keep my discussions "respectful." Thanks."

Bullshit! There's nothing respectful about publicly accusing someone of making a racist statement and then when they ask you to explain what statement was racist you refuse to answer.
And this statement isn't respectful either "Or, is there another reason why you are ducking this debate?"

I used to think you were better than most of the right-wingers on here but you've proven me wrong.

[Paul Waine]

So it’s just everyone in the UK who’s died as a result of air pollution that you’re blaming New Labour for (as long as we presume that airborne pollutants respect national boundaries). I stand corrected.

It’s still a ludicrous thing to say though.

FWIW you almost have a point about the requirement for economic advancement, but that only really works if “we” are part of the third world, which we aren’t yet, despite the Tories’ best efforts. Give it time, though.

Seriously Gm, take a look at the reports on the extra deaths. It's not a "ludicrous" claim - this is what the scientists have concluded - and why diesel engined road vehicles are now being discouraged.

Climate change will be solved by the "first world" becuase it requires "first world" wealth to solve these issues. Of course, it will help if every country can develop to have a "first world" economy. And, yes, it is the economic growth that also results in a large part of the carbon emissions.

[Paul Waine]

I used to think you were better than most of the right-wingers on here

What makes you think I'm "right wing?"

[TsarBomba]

Your beef is with the government for not funding you properly. Just because the government isn't finding you properly does not mean the rest of the public should facilitate their lack of funding by refusing to protest. And by the way, this argument your making that the public should protest less is counter productive to your case because if the government knows that they can restrict protests by making it so that the police aren't equipped to deal with protests then they're more likely to defund you, not less.

Whether you mean to or not you're kinda scapegoating protesters.

You misread.

I haven’t an issue with peaceful protesting. I’m all for it.

You do know you can protest without breaking the law, right?

[Paul Waine]

I'm not sure what the "Climate Rebellion" guys thought they were doing down at Canary Wharf at lunch time today. I guess they know that the DLR runs on electricity - and that DLR trains are never busy in the middle of the day.

[Greenmile]

Seriously Gm, take a look at the reports on the extra deaths. It's not a "ludicrous" claim - this is what the scientists have concluded - and why diesel engined road vehicles are now being discouraged.

Climate change will be solved by the "first world" becuase it requires "first world" wealth to solve these issues. Of course, it will help if every country can develop to have a "first world" economy. And, yes, it is the economic growth that also results in a large part of the carbon emissions.

I refuse to believe that every death caused by air pollution in the UK is solely down to Blair and Brown promoting the use of diesel nearly 10 years ago (at least) which is what you’ve claimed. If that was the case, it would be a pretty simple problem to fix.

Do you think diesel is the only source of air pollution? Do you think that, without New Labour promoting it, there would be no diesel vehicles on our roads? Do you think that, since Brown left office in 2010, the government has been absolutely powerless to do anything to reverse New Labour’s “promotion” of diesel? Because those are the implications of your claim that...

Hi Andrew, re air pollution, I guess you know that that was because Blair/Brown promoted the use of diesel ...

Come on, Paul. You’re not that stupid. Maybe you just need to reword the quote above so that it says what you meant it to, rather than what it does say.

On the other point, there’s an argument that third world countries still need to burn carbon for their energy requirements, for economic reasons. There’s absolutely no reason why advanced economies like ours shouldn’t be setting an example by moving to renewable energy sources.

[Greenmile]

What makes you think I'm "right wing?"

I’d imagine it’s all the right wing opinions you hold (or express on here at least - maybe it’s all an act)

[SmudgetheClaret]

You two need to start proof-reading your posts for utter stupidity. This is some fo the dumbest **** posted on any climate change thread. I expect this level of stupidity from Smudge, but i'm disappointed to see it from you, BleedingClaret.

I
Missed your answer Mr Turtle have you been away ? going away ? how you travelling?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Them 4 weirdos who glued themselves to a train have been refused bail

[hampsteadclaret]

86..Top Claret

‘ idiot demonstrators will more than likely be school teachers on there Easter holidays..’

FFS... I think you could have done with a bit more school yourself.

Let me guess - you were a massive school failure..?

[Lord Rothbury]

Possibly because they are likely to move their untaxed/insured VW camper van from Dartmoor to some other location with a plentiful supply of magic mushrooms.The police would then have to trace them to where they redirected their benefit payments.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Their benefit payments will be sent to a house, usually their parents, or their own home in many cases.

Bit like the Pikeys with their caravans, all their car insurance docs will be sent to a house somewhere.

[SGr]

Sorry I’m not an environmental extremist but why am I seeing shouts that man-made climate change isn’t real?

Whatever helps you sleep at night

[Paul Waine]

I refuse to believe that every death caused by air pollution in the UK is solely down to Blair and Brown promoting the use of diesel nearly 10 years ago (at least) which is what you’ve claimed. If that was the case, it would be a pretty simple problem to fix.

Do you think diesel is the only source of air pollution? Do you think that, without New Labour promoting it, there would be no diesel vehicles on our roads? Do you think that, since Brown left office in 2010, the government has been absolutely powerless to do anything to reverse New Labour’s “promotion” of diesel? Because those are the implications of your claim that...

Come on, Paul. You’re not that stupid. Maybe you just need to reword the quote above so that it says what you meant it to, rather than what it does say.

On the other point, there’s an argument that third world countries still need to burn carbon for their energy requirements, for economic reasons. There’s absolutely no reason why advanced economies like ours shouldn’t be setting an example by moving to renewable energy sources.

Hi Gm, I care about this enough to have another go at providing some information for you.

Please take a look at what I wrote and what you've written. I'm referencing extra deaths, not all deaths. The increase in the uk in the numbers of deaths above the previously expected levels correlates closely to the increased use of diesel motor vehicles substituting for petrol vehicles.

A few quotes from a BHF Policy Statement on Air Pollution (yes, I know - and do not claim - that diesel is the only source of ap) - which BHF has based on the medical research it funds.

Take a look at the BHF statement that I've underlined at the foot of these quotes.

You can find the document here: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsuppo ... -statement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Research shows that air pollution can make existing heart conditions worse and cause cardiovascular events in vulnerable groups. Recent studies have linked air pollution to both increased incidence of heart attacks and a worsening of heart failure. The association between elevated levels of air pollution and increased cardiac death rates was first recognised in the early 1950s. Since this time scientists have been researching the nature of the link, and the growing evidence confirms a causal relationship.

Background
Research shows that both long-term and short-term exposure to air pollution can make existing heart conditions worse and can cause cardiovascular events including heart attacks amongst vulnerable groups. Given the large number of people living in the UK with cardiovascular disease and the likelihood of their exposure to air pollution, it is imperative the governments and administrations around the UK ensure they are meeting European Union air quality limits and targets as soon as possible to improve air quality.

BHF Research
Since 2010 the BHF has provided £3.2 million for medical research that will help us better understand the link between air pollution and cardiovascular disease. Most of this research has focused on how small particles known as PM2.5 can be easily inhaled and affect the function of blood vessels consequently triggering cardiovascular events. Additional research is urgently needed to investigate the independent health impacts of several gaseous pollutants e.g. ozone and nitrogen dioxide.

Government action needed
In light of the growing evidence implicating air pollution as a cause of cardiovascular disease the BHF is calling on the UK Governments to:
Explore a range of policy options to act quickly to improve UK air quality and meet all EU air quality targets whilst working towards the lower World Health Organisation guidelines.
Retain legal duty for local authorities to monitor local air quality.
Make it mandatory for all diesel powered vehicles, regardless of age, to be fitted with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) that meets Euro 6/VI Standards to reduce the harmful high levels of traffic related particle emissions
Include within MOT test a physical check of all existing DPFs to ensure they are working properly and have not been tampered with.
Improved warning systems for public about elevated pollution levels

BHF is aware that a by-product of DPFs is increased nitrogen dioxide emissions and of the debate surrounding independent health effects of nitrogen dioxide. We are maintaining a watching brief on the development of academic evidence linking this pollutant to cardiovascular health.


The majority of research has focused on fine particles and cardiovascular disease, and there is now enough evidence to support a causal link.2,3,4 The association with cardiovascular disease and exposure to PM is strongest for exposure to PM2.5 and ultrafine particles derived from diesel vehicle exhausts.5,6
Studies suggest that traffic pollution is specifically associated with cardiovascular risk due to the high level of fine and ultrafine particulate matter emitted.7 Experts believe this is one of the major public health burdens today because we’re all exposed to traffic pollution so often.8,9 This is exacerbated by two factors. Firstly, the number of cars on UK roads has risen from 19 to 34.5 million vehicles between 1980 and 201210,11 Secondly, following Government promotion of diesel cars through favourable tax rates based on carbon dioxide emissions, registrations of diesel cars now outstrip petrol. 12

[GodIsADeeJay81]

What makes you think I'm "right wing?"

If turtle or one of his cronies labels you on this forum, then that's what you are I'm afraid.
You will carry this badge of shame for the rest of your life.

[Paul Waine]

86..Top Claret

‘ idiot demonstrators will more than likely be school teachers on there Easter holidays..’

FFS... I think you could have done with a bit more school yourself.

Let me guess - you were a massive school failure..?

Hi hampstead, I don't claim that the climate rebellion people include a lot of teachers... however, there's a letter in the Evening Standard today, that is defending the current actions. It includes the following: "But those taking part in the current actions are those who hear children's please mostly keenly, including many of their teachers, who are on Easter break."

A lot of people close to me are, and have been, teachers. I'm a strong proponent of good education. Well educated people will find the answers to the climate change challenges we face.

[Paul Waine]

I’d imagine it’s all the right wing opinions you hold (or express on here at least - maybe it’s all an act)

That's one of life's curiosities, I believe, people see what they want to see. Have you missed all the opinions I've expressed that would not support your conclusion?

[Greenmile]

Hi Gm, I care about this enough to have another go at providing some information for you.

Please take a look at what I wrote and what you've written. I'm referencing extra deaths, not all deaths...

Sorry Paul, but I stopped reading here. Perhaps you want to go back and see what you wrote (I’ve already quoted it twice for you), because that’s not what you said at all.

Is it so difficult to say “i said x, but I meant y. Sorry for being unclear - I see where you were coming from now.”?

My original reply to you was fairly lighthearted, as even then I didn’t think you’d said what you meant to, and I was trying to point that out in an amusing way (my sense of humour is unusual / terrible), but you’re beginning to annoy me by dishonestly doubling down now and your tone is approaching Rowls levels of patronising.

If you want me to read the BHF info, I’ll probably agree with the point you wanted to make, but first you will have to admit that’s not what you said.

Once more, for clarity (and watch out for the total absence of the word “extra”)

The government reckons that between twenty-eight and thirty-six thousand people die each year as a result of air pollution.

Hi Andrew, re air pollution, I guess you know that that was because Blair/Brown promoted the use of diesel (rather than petrol) because it had lower carbon emissions - but they didn't think that the extra nox mattered.

(Disclaimer: the quoted posts did go on to talk about different topics, and I’ve removed this for brevity. Posts 75 & 77)

[Paul Waine]

Sorry Paul, but I stopped reading here. Perhaps you want to go back and see what you wrote (I’ve already quoted it twice for you), because that’s not what you said at all.

Is it so difficult to say “i said x, but I meant y. Sorry for being unclear - I see where you were coming from now.”?

My original reply to you was fairly lighthearted, as even then I didn’t think you’d said what you meant to, and I was trying to point that out in an amusing way (my sense of humour is unusual / terrible), but you’re beginning to annoy me by dishonestly doubling down now and your tone is approaching Rowls levels of patronising.

If you want me to read the BHF info, I’ll probably agree with the point you wanted to make, but first you will have to admit that’s not what you said.

Once more, for clarity (and watch out for the total absence of the word “extra”)

Hi Greenmile, ok. I've read it all through again, Yes, Andrew refered to "air pollution" - and I immediately made the link to diesel and Blair/Brown changes in duty on diesel - I think it was in 2001 - to encourage motorists to drive diesel cars rather than petrol cars.

Maybe I've got some of this wrong. I was referrring to the "extra deaths" rather than all air pollutuon deaths. I didn't quote a figure for the "extra deaths" - though I understand it is considerable.

Maybe, in my haste to post, after a long day at work, I didin't post as clearly as I should have done.

Yes, sorry for being unclear.

Why did I introduce the subject of "diesel pollution" into a climate change thread? I believe we have to be very thoughtful and intelligent about how we respond to climate change. Diesel was promoted to cut carbon emissions, but the increassed use of diesel, very quickly, resulted in more deaths from diesel pollution. And, more people suffering heart attacks and living with cardiovascular disease for the rest of their natural. (Full disclosure: I had my heart attack 3 years ago - and back "in good health" - but the cardiovascular disease will never go away).

That's my concern with climate change, too many half-thought through "solutions" and "but we must do something, actions" which only end up wasting time - and money - and cause bigger, nearer term, negative effects than what the world really needs to achieve.

If you are interested, it's worth taking a look at BHF research.

Have a great Easter w/end. I'll be at Stamford Bridge on Monday night. Would love to come away with 3 pts, again, like last season.

[Greenmile]

Thank you, Paul

[Damo]

Looks like we are finding out what Extinction Rebelion's actual motives are. It's in their manifesto

"Instigate a Modern Debt Jubilee – give everyone some money to pay off debts (Steve Keens’ proposal for a modern debt jubilee)"

https://risingup.org.uk/draft-manifesto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Free stuff for everyone!

[SmudgetheClaret]

55,000 years ago it was 1.96 degrees warmer than it is today ...how odd that we are 12 years from climate Armageddon..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sY2tjmr_Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[evensteadiereddie]

Aye, it's not as though much has changed over the last 55,000 years is it, you gormless prat ?

I can excuse your pathetic standards of literacy but your stupidity is beyond understanding.

[SmudgetheClaret]

Aye, it's not as though much has changed over the last 55,000 years is it, you gormless prat ?

I can excuse your pathetic standards of literacy but your stupidity is beyond understanding.

Well go on steady enlighten me on what's changed as your NOT a prat (questionable) if it was warmer all those years ago go on explain the imminent danger ??????

[bfcjg]

"Actress Dame Emma Thompson has joined the Extinction Rebellion protests in London after flying from Los Angeles as activists plan to target Heathrow Airport over the Easter weekend."
Oh the irony !

[SmudgetheClaret]

Emma Thompson flew 6,000 miles on a massive gas guzzler to sit and virtue signal with a bunch of do as we say not as we do cult members ....oh the hypocrisy is mind blowing ..

[grapidianclaret]

Well go on steady enlighten me on what's changed as your NOT a prat (questionable) if it was warmer all those years ago go on explain the imminent danger ??????

I don't see you as one for enlightenment, but here goes.

55,000 years ago , the human population was not 7 billion, fast approaching nine billion for when the real effects of global warming kick in. We, as a planet are already experiencing massive population displacement due to wars and civil unrest. displacement in the low millions. This has contributed to further unrest in the continent of Europe due to migration. again, low millions. By centuries end, 2 BILLION people will most likely be displaced due to much higher sea levels, and large areas of the planet, around the equator being uninhabitable due to the higher temperatures and , ironically drought.
55,000 years ago, flint spears and arrows were the preferred method of dealing with migratory issues. Today we have nuclear weapons amongst other weapons.

There is much more, but this is enough of the facts for you to blatantly ignore for the moment.

[evensteadiereddie]

"your not a prat" . Brilliant.

So what do you think has caused climate change in relatively recent times, smudge ? Go on, have a guess.
Or, perhaps, if you're - yes, that's how you spell it - some thicko living in his Burnley time warp then the problem simply doesn't exist and all's well ?

[CombatClaret]

Looks like we are finding out what Extinction Rebelion's actual motives are. It's in their manifesto
"Instigate a Modern Debt Jubilee – give everyone some money to pay off debts (Steve Keens’ proposal for a modern debt jubilee)"
https://risingup.org.uk/draft-manifesto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Free stuff for everyone!

Come on Damo, that's not 'Extinction Rebellion', that's 'Rise Up' (clue's in the website), a different group all together who happen to support and link to info on ER.

If you've going to spout guff get the website right. Can't find debt jubliee on here though...
https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SmudgetheClaret]

I don't see you as one for enlightenment, but here goes.

55,000 years ago , the human population was not 7 billion, fast approaching nine billion for when the real effects of global warming kick in. We, as a planet are already experiencing massive population displacement due to wars and civil unrest. displacement in the low millions. This has contributed to further unrest in the continent of Europe due to migration. again, low millions. By centuries end, 2 BILLION people will most likely be displaced due to much higher sea levels, and large areas of the planet, around the equator being uninhabitable due to the higher temperatures and , ironically drought.
55,000 years ago, flint spears and arrows were the preferred method of dealing with migratory issues. Today we have nuclear weapons amongst other weapons.

There is much more, but this is enough of the facts for you to blatantly ignore for the moment.

Sounds like a crock of sh*t I didn't ask you anyway chunky ..

[SmudgetheClaret]

"your not a prat" . Brilliant.

So what do you think has caused climate change in relatively recent times, smudge ? Go on, have a guess.
Or, perhaps, if you're - yes, that's how you spell it - some thicko living in his Burnley time warp then the problem simply doesn't exist and all's well ?

Is there an answer anywhere in that as I can't spot it ...it was global warming it's now man made climate change what will it be called next extinction count down ...tick tick tick project fear is a massive fail by the left.

[Damo]

Come on Damo, that's not 'Extinction Rebellion', that's 'Rise Up' (clue's in the website), a different group all together who happen to support and link to info on ER.

If you've going to spout guff get the website right. Can't find debt jubliee on here though...
https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMG_20190419_191657.jpg (231.64 KiB) Viewed 1628 times

It quite clearly says Extinction Rebelion there.
It's easy for someone like me to mistake the two.
Post some proof of extinction rebelion distancing themselves from these people and I am quite happy to hold up my hand and admit I was wrong.
It would be a shame to link an environmental group with some rag tag communist, work shirkers

[Damo]

Come on Damo, that's not 'Extinction Rebellion', that's 'Rise Up' (clue's in the website), a different group all together who happen to support and link to info on ER.

If you've going to spout guff get the website right. Can't find debt jubliee on here though...
https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I've only just checked out the website you posted.
I cant argue with that position. I'd hope the distance themselves from Rise Up though. Would be a shame for their hard work to be undone by these "Rise up" chancers

[Imploding Turtle]

IMG_20190419_191657.jpg

It quite clearly says Extinction Rebelion there.
It's easy for someone like me to mistake the two.
Post some proof of extinction rebelion distancing themselves from these people and I am quite happy to hold up my hand and admit I was wrong.
It would be a shame to link an environmental group with some rag tag communist, work shirkers

Why do they have to distance themselves? The Extinction Rebellion is about climate change, why are you trying to dig up other political beliefs some of their supporters have? What has that got to do with anything?

Do you think the way you are debating this issue is constructive? Do you think the rest of us can't see what you're doing?

Here's what the Extinction Rebellion want:

1. The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.

2. The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.

3. A national Citizen’s Assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.

Why the **** are you avoiding the debate on climate change by bringing up a completely different group with a completely different set of goals? That's not how adults debate issues.

[Imploding Turtle]

Sorry, I've only just checked out the website you posted.
I cant argue with that position. I'd hope the distance themselves from Rise Up though. Would be a shame for their hard work to be undone by these "Rise up" chancers

Yes, it would be a shame if people undid their work by trying to smear them with the apparently bad reputation of other groups.

[Paul Waine]

Here's what the Extinction Rebellion want:

1. The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.

2. The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.

3. A national Citizen’s Assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.

Hi IT, am I permitted to ask a question?

What does "enact legally binding policy measures" mean? "Enact" - pass into law? Aren't all laws "legally binding?" On the other hand, are "policy measures" ever laws?

What does "net" mean in "reduce carbon emissions to net zero?" I'm assume some form of offset, cut emissions in some areas to enable some emissions to continue in others? Why not just "reduce carbon emissions to zero?"

Biggest issue I have with these "demands" (that's how ER describe them on their website) is that it is impossible to cut carbon emissions to "net zero" by 2025. Maybe there will be some scientific/engineering breakthroughs in the next few years, maybe these will enable acceleration from the current goals, maybe it will be possible to remove all petrol/diesel engine rvs from the roads before 2040 (current plans are only to end selling new ones, not to scrap all existing ice rvs).

Can my ideas for reforming parliament - posted a number of times on here - qualify as a "national Citizens' Assembly" (I'm sure ER intend an assembly of more than one citizen).

Are the ER demands backed by scientists? (I accept anthropomorphic climate change is reality).

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, am I permitted to ask a question?

What does "enact legally binding policy measures" mean? "Enact" - pass into law? Aren't all laws "legally binding?" On the other hand, are "policy measures" ever laws?

What does "net" mean in "reduce carbon emissions to net zero?" I'm assume some form of offset, cut emissions in some areas to enable some emissions to continue in others? Why not just "reduce carbon emissions to zero?"

Biggest issue I have with these "demands" (that's how ER describe them on their website) is that it is impossible to cut carbon emissions to "net zero" by 2025. Maybe there will be some scientific/engineering breakthroughs in the next few years, maybe these will enable acceleration from the current goals, maybe it will be possible to remove all petrol/diesel engine rvs from the roads before 2040 (current plans are only to end selling new ones, not to scrap all existing ice rvs).

Can my ideas for reforming parliament - posted a number of times on here - qualify as a "national Citizens' Assembly" (I'm sure ER intend an assembly of more than one citizen).

Are the ER demands backed by scientists? (I accept anthropomorphic climate change is reality).

If you have questions for the Extinction Rebellion then I suggest you contact the Extinction Rebellion.

[Damo]

Yes, it would be a shame if people undid their work by trying to smear them with the apparently bad reputation of other groups.

Hence my post Charlie.
I know you are a socialist, and I can see why demanding money with menaces doesn't seem like such a big deal. But to most people it is.
Most people understand that climate change is real.
They understand that its man made
They understand that something needs to be done
They wont understand when a group of unemployed, socialist beggars post demands on social media, while proclaiming to be affiliated with extinction rebelion though.
I think most people will see that as a bit counter productive

[Imploding Turtle]

Hence my post Charlie.
I know you are a socialist,...

Stop right there. What makes me a socialist?

Edit, actually, never mind. You're wrong and you know you're wrong. That's a deliberate attempt to drag me off topic.

... and I can see why demanding money with menaces doesn't seem like such a big deal. But to most people it is.
Most people understand that climate change is real.
They understand that its man made
They understand that something needs to be done
They wont understand when a group of unemployed, socialist beggars post demands on social media, while proclaiming to be affiliated with extinction rebelion though.
I think most people will see that as a bit counter productive

No. What is counter-productive is claiming to accept that climate change man made and that something needs to be done, while at the same time opposing political groups who are trying to make sure our politicians do something about it.

That would appear to be the definition of counter-productive.

[Damo]

Stop right there. What makes me a socialist?

Edit, actually, never mind. You're wrong and you know you're wrong. That's a deliberate attempt to drag me off topic.





No. What is counter-productive is claiming to accept that climate change man made and that something needs to be done, while at the same time opposing political groups who are trying to make sure our politicians do something about it.

That would appear to be the definition of counter-productive.

Ok Owen Jones

[Imploding Turtle]

Ok Owen Jones

There you go again. You can't debate the points, can you? I put across a well-reasoned counter to your argument and instead of either conceding or disputing them you have to resort to this kind of childishness.

[Paul Waine]

No. What is counter-productive is claiming to accept that climate change man made and that something needs to be done, while at the same time opposing political groups who are trying to make sure our politicians do something about it.

That would appear to be the definition of counter-productive.

I hope this helps, IT.

Philip Collins in The Times, (Friday), (just a few quotes - its a long comment piece):

Thatcher can teach green activists a lesson

The former prime minister was the first leader to realise that market forces can be the best way to tackle climate change

"The inconvenient truth about climate change is that it does not fit into domestic politics. The protesters of Extinction Rebellion have been disrupting human traffic in London and other cities to draw our attention to the fact that the world is warming up. Yet we know this and have known it for a long time. There’s another reason why climate change has not become a big political issue."

"On November 8, 1989, in a speech to the general assembly of the United Nations, Margaret Thatcher warned that careless human custody of the planet was creating “change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all”. Thatcher was unequivocal about the scientific evidence, which she quoted at length. Human action was at fault and the consequence was environmental damage that could become irretrievable."

"I recall trying to help David Miliband, foreign secretary in 2008, craft a speech to the Labour Party conference. The plan was to go catastrophic, to draw a vision of planetary hellfire in which the poor of the earth were displaced for no sin greater than living in valleys. But we abandoned it all as grandiloquent rubbish. The projections were true, as far as we knew, but they were too remote from the Labour Party conference in Manchester. We were, in effect, asking the delegates to care more about the future population of Bangladesh than the present population of Burnley. That seemed an unlikely, almost meaningless, demand, even to a sympathetic audience."

"In October a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body that Thatcher did so much to promote, showed the devastating tides that would follow if the world heats by another degree, to 2C above pre-industrial levels. There is no question that we need to act and Thatcher had the right answers 30 years ago."

"There is, of course, scope for what she called “a vast international, co-operative effort” but the stress in her speech was on getting the economics right. “We must resist the simplistic tendency to blame modern multinational industry for the damage,” she said, because “it is industry which will develop safe alternative chemicals for refrigerators and air conditioning”. Extinction Rebellion, however, sound as if they want to turn back the clock on technology and ask people to stop living modern lives of such abundance. Theirs is a hopeless case and it will not work.

"A far better answer has been supplied by William Nordhaus, the doyen of climate change economists, who won a Nobel prize last year. Nordhaus ran a famous experiment to measure the energy required to light a room throughout the course of human history. He cut wood and burnt it, lit an antique oil lamp, measured one of Edison’s lightbulbs and then tried the modern version. Back at the start of human history a day’s labour could light a room for ten minutes. By the end of the 20th century, a day’s labour could light a room for ten years."

"The Mission Possible report by the Energy Transitions Commission showed recently that it was possible to achieve a net zero carbon economy without detriment to prosperity. The missing link will not be government intervention or increased awareness. President Trump pulled the US out of the 2016 Paris agreement on climate change but greenhouse gas emissions in America fell 2.7 per cent in 2016-17, more than anywhere else in the world. The vital component will be human ingenuity fostered within markets regulated cleverly by the state. Not many of the people stopping the traffic will tell you that."

************************

I've underlined the mention of Burnley - but only because we are all Burnley fans.

I've also underlined "Human ingenuity.... within markets" because that's where the challenge of climate change will be solved.

I plan to take a look at William Nordhaus sometime.

The Mission Possible report also sounds like it may be an interesting read.