cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 10, 2019 9:51:33 GMT
Getting into name-calling are we corto ? Not a good look. I accept the premise of man-made climate change, but I don't accept the idea that we have to abandon capitalism and go back to the stone-age. Not necessary and not going to happen. As to capitalism - that nasty idea that's taken more people out of poverty than any other system in history. Btw, do you invest in P2P? If so, isn't that supporting capitalism? The right wingers are name calling all the time - the meme "going back to the stone age" for example. No activist claims that. 20% child poverty in this country; the richest 400 Americans now paying less tax than the average; 20 firms behind a third of carbon emissions; 2 of them prominent in a "green" fund (as claimed on this thread somewhere) You may have incorporated the general fact that climate change is real; but you are still in denial about the nature of capitalism. Child poverty - I believe the definition is down to families being below (a quite arbitrary) 60% of median income. Stupid definition. Give every family 10 times their current income, 'poverty' will be unchanged by that definition. Anybody who has been to the third world will know that real poverty looks very different to most of the UK's so-called poverty.
20 firms - been reading this Guardian article where George Monbiot tries to blame the oil companies? Most liked Guardian-reader comment by YeToadYeToad "I'm sorry I don't buy this. These "top 20 companies" simply extract and sell oil. We are the ones who use it. Blaming the companies absolves us. It is our responsibility". YTYD is right imo, it's the vast majority of the population who drive, heat their homes, have a job... that are to blame.
Notice you skipped my questions about you and P2P investing and supporting capitalism.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Oct 10, 2019 10:06:52 GMT
They all turn up in their nylon tents and designer fashion highly carbon producing products in a 3 litre carbon pumping hearse. It Just makes me want to light a bonfire š„ in the garden. If they spent their time of which they have plenty since the seem to make no contribution to society except to breed highly carbon producing children and used Ā£40k a day they get planting trees on moorland it would have a greater positive effect than pissing off hard working people who then canāt afford more carbon neutral food and have to buy cheap high carbon footprint processed foods. Cause and effect it costs to be low carbon nation and stifling peopleās ability to afford those measures is self defeating. Children are are not the solution they are the cause. If world population declined we would not have the problem. They all love Labour as they will give unlimited benefits to the ā Itās my right to have kidsā brigade. Who will pump out generations of carbon producing society sponging unemployed generations. Who pays ? The prudent workers who restrict their families to what they can afford. What a hate speech. You are seriously confused. 100% climate change due to human population increase above the ability of nature to compensate. If all protesters throughout the planet planted say 5 trees for every day they protested the planet could clean up itself. If every person restricted their breeding to just replace themselves then populations would decrease due to those unable or unwilling to reproduce. They say be responsible . Population reduction solves lots of problems. Less energy used, less plastic, less meat production. EVERY problem is made worse by having too many children.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 10, 2019 10:15:03 GMT
Notice you skipped my questions about you and P2P investing and supporting capitalism.
And?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 10, 2019 10:18:29 GMT
Notice you skipped my questions about you and P2P investing and supporting capitalism.
And? In a number of threads you come across to me as being anti-capitalist and you accused me (without proof or specifics) of being "still in denial about the nature of capitalism", so I'm wondering if you're a capitalist yourself. If so, some would say that was hypocrisy.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 10, 2019 10:23:22 GMT
Found this on XR's website - under the heading "What can I do" - "Here are just some suggestions for non-violent direct action (NVDA) to get your MP to āSign the Three Demands Billā. Go to the advertised meetings your MP is attending or holding and ask them to sign the Bill. ...Glueing / locking onto the door of the building".
If XR supporters turned up to the meeting by private transport (obviously electric), I wonder if they'd see the funny side if somebody like me glued themselves to their car's windscreen to prevent them leaving
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Oct 10, 2019 10:27:47 GMT
The right wingers are name calling all the time - the meme "going back to the stone age" for example. No activist claims that. 20% child poverty in this country; the richest 400 Americans now paying less tax than the average; 20 firms behind a third of carbon emissions; 2 of them prominent in a "green" fund (as claimed on this thread somewhere) You may have incorporated the general fact that climate change is real; but you are still in denial about the nature of capitalism. Child poverty - I believe the definition is down to families being below (a quite arbitrary) 60% of median income. Stupid definition. Give every family 10 times their current income, 'poverty' will be unchanged by that definition. Anybody who has been to the third world will know that real poverty looks very different to most of the UK's so-called poverty.
20 firms - been reading this Guardian article where George Monbiot tries to blame the oil companies? Most liked Guardian-reader comment by YeToadYeToad "I'm sorry I don't buy this. These "top 20 companies" simply extract and sell oil. We are the ones who use it. Blaming the companies absolves us. It is our responsibility". YTYD is right imo, it's the vast majority of the population who drive, heat their homes, have a job... that are to blame.
Notice you skipped my questions about you and P2P investing and supporting capitalism.
Apparently Ā£17400 So letās just take the children and assume the adults can survive on their salary as this what childless people do. Child benefit is Ā£1800 a year for 2 kids which gives you Ā£35 a week to feed and buy clothes. Never mind tax credits etc. If iyou canāt do it on that then it is your ineptitude not anything else that is at fault . Use the money allocated for the children not on anything else. Go to food banks and have a queue for 1 hour then remove anyone who has a cigarette or vapes in that time. I know there can be sudden adversity that can cause problems but I believe the majority of the fault is self inflicted. I am happy to be proved wrong so if anybody knows anyone who has used a food bank please give us their income and spending so we can assist them in living within their means.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 10, 2019 11:03:38 GMT
I watched a BBC2 series called 'Broke' ( link) a while back, which was quite interesting. A number - though not all - were cases which I'd put down as "self inflicted", in that simple changes to their behaviour would fix the problem. E.g. a woman who came from Wales where there wasn't much employment, so she moved to Liverpool for work. Good move, but she chose to keep her property in Wales along with the one she was renting in Liverpool. Bad move, not many people can afford to keep up two properties. Selling the property in Wales was the obvious move.
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Oct 10, 2019 12:19:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 15:24:35 GMT
Margret was one of the first leaders to point out the problem. That both parties have vacillated ever since is the main issue.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 10, 2019 15:45:00 GMT
Margret was one of the first leaders to point out the problem. That both parties have vacillated ever since is the main issue. The public also seems a little in two minds about climate change. Various polls say a large percentage see climate change as an emergency or are very worried about it, but I see no sign that the same percentage of people have dramatically reduced or complete given up flying, ICE vehicles, meat consumption etc. because we'd see that in the relevant statistics.
Interesting YouGov study of 30,000 people in 28 countries here The 1633 people from GB answered "Which countries, if any, do you think have had the most negative impact on global warming and climate change? (Please tick up to five)" with, in order, China 65, US 61, India 38, Russia 29, Brazil 17, UK 13 (guess you'd have to divide each figure by 5 to get percentages to allow for "Please tick up to five"). Hence GB sample put other countries top of the 'blame' list. Might go some way to explain people's inaction.
British Airways making a start with "BRITISH AIRWAYS TO BECOME FIRST UK AIRLINE TO OFFSET CARBON EMISSIONS ON FLIGHTS WITHIN THE UK FROM 2020" ( here). Though I'm very doubtful on the use of carbon offsetting, it's better than nothing. Now there's something that could be done painlessly without the need to superglue oneself to a building, request the UK government pass a law requiring all flights from a UK base to whatever destination be carbon offset.
|
|
Vero
Member of DD Central
Posts: 196
Likes: 163
|
Post by Vero on Oct 10, 2019 16:16:23 GMT
Margret was one of the first leaders to point out the problem. That both parties have vacillated ever since is the main issue. Yes, I've not heard good things about Margaret Thatcher, I was so surprised to find that she practically single-handedly kicked off the green, environmental and climate change movements, globally!
MT was a scientist, she investigated and understood the scientific data, yet the entire EU, leaders, politicians and bureaucracy ridiculed her for her stance.
History shows that MT recommended a neutral, international, non-political, co-operative stance to tackle these.
It seems she decided to let it go years later when other movements picked up her issues and started using them politically.
climateandsecurity.org/2013/04/08/margaret-thatcher-on-climate-and-environmental-risks/--Margaret Thatcher on Climate and Environmental Risks
www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-11-08-mn-1146-story.html --Thatcher Seeks U.N. Environmental Pact Her speech on the environment and climate change to the UN General Assembly on November 8 1989 was amazing: singjupost.com/margaret-thatcher-un-general-assembly-climate-change-speech-1989-transcript/--On November 8th 1989, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave an inspiring speech to the UN General Assembly about the environment and climate change. Over the course of her half hour speech, she set out the problems we face and how we could resolve them. It was one of a number of inspiring climate change speeches by the then Prime Minister. A small excerpt: "What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate - all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways."
She continued: "The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching.
It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. We shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort"
I mentioned this to a few politically minded friends and they said I was lying! Even when I showed them the facts, they said it was not true, to the point of being rude/aggressive. I am politically homeless atm and definitely do NOT judge people on their politics, but I thought this was genuinely interesting, and to deny facts because you don't like someone, or it doesn't fit your agenda? Like thought police? I was really disappointed in my friends for this nastiness.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 10, 2019 17:12:58 GMT
British Airways making a start with "BRITISH AIRWAYS TO BECOME FIRST UK AIRLINE TO OFFSET CARBON EMISSIONS ON FLIGHTS WITHIN THE UK FROM 2020" ( here). Though I'm very doubtful on the use of carbon offsetting, it's better than nothing. Shell are doing that with fuel - one tree for every five fill-ups. www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3082469/shell-to-offer-drivers-carbon-offsets-at-no-extra-costIt's all greenwash, of course. Especially when you compare it to things like the Amazon deforestation. It's certainly one way to ensure that the Heathrow expansion isn't needed for regional hub traffic... Something like that can't be done by one country alone - it has to be done through (at a minimum) large-scale cooperation. Semi-continental - that sort of scale, so all major hubs were competing on a level playing field. If only there was a way the UK could be part of something like that?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 10, 2019 17:24:04 GMT
The government should also state that Heathrow runway 3 won't be approved (on grounds of emissions, noise, disruption).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 10, 2019 19:59:44 GMT
The government should also state that Heathrow runway 3 won't be approved (on grounds of emissions, noise, disruption). The current PM is on record as having stated that he would lie "in front of those bulldozers and stop the building, stop the construction of that third runway" And who are we to doubt his word?
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Oct 10, 2019 20:35:18 GMT
The government should also state that Heathrow runway 3 won't be approved (on grounds of emissions, noise, disruption). The current PM is on record as having stated that he would lie "in front of those bulldozers and stop the building, stop the construction of that third runway" And who are we to doubt his word? he has changed his view already - he now wants to put John Bercow there instead
|
|