pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 16, 2020 12:04:59 GMT
The BBC has today announced "a year-long series of special programming and coverage on climate change". See link www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51104776The tone of the messaging is clear climate change is A) caused by human activity and real, B) is having real negative effects on our world now now, C) will be catastrophic to humanity to the extent that our very survival is in question and D) only a radical change now can stop C. To lay my cards on the table I am A - probably, B - maybe but lots of other things having worse effects, C - not convinced, of course potentially but so could potentially a lot of things and D - some things need to change, mainly to protect the environment per se rather than simply for climate change reasons, but we need to be careful what we actually implement here i.e. I do not buy the whole we need a socialist revolution argument and think that the centre-right of politics cannot allow the far left to occupy the moral high ground. Some quotes from the article to show the radical nature of the BBC's approach here. "find out what humanity is doing to face up to possibly the greatest challenge in our history" "Greenland's ice faces melting 'death sentence'" "Extinction: The Facts will examine the fragile state of the natural world." I don't want this thread to turn into a debate on climate change. I want to ask one simple question in poll, is it the BBC's place to be using its position as a public service broadcaster to be making such claims. The latest polling shows that the environment (which is much broader than climate change) ranks fourth with voters as the most important issue. Other issues which are as important to voters such as immigration seem to receive far far less coverage from the BBC, so I can only assume that the BBC is taking a campaigning position to say that climate change is a more important issue than people think and we are going to campaign so that the public agree with us. Is this right?
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727
Likes: 491
|
Post by jo on Jan 16, 2020 13:17:16 GMT
I'm reserving judgement until after Adrianc has posted #100 links. (only kidding matey).
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,788
Likes: 2,735
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 16, 2020 13:31:11 GMT
It may be A, B, C, D or none of those.
What I don't like is that those who are on one side of the debate (the minority I think) are labelled "deniers". The term was and still is used to describe holocaust deniers which is a historical fact that millions of people were murdered in "concentration camps" in Germany during the last century.
If it turns out to be C then the effects to the human race could be of the same order of magnitude but it isn't a fact that that is true and in my opinion, to use the term "denier" degrades the use of the term in other contexts such as a denier of the holocaust and that is a very bad thing.
Also, using the term makes it very hard for anyone to even think about questioning it. We could use the word denier for any side of any argument and it has the effect of simply suppressing thoughts, ideas and speech. I think the right type of argument to use it is for those rare cases like the holocaust and other atrocities that are historical facts not future predictions. Using it for the latter shows little respect to the former.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 16, 2020 13:55:46 GMT
It may be A, B, C, D or none of those. What I don't like is that those who are on one side of the debate (the minority I think) are labelled "deniers". The term was and still is used to describe holocaust deniers which is a historical fact that millions of people were murdered in "concentration camps" in Germany during the last century. If it turns out to be C then the effects to the human race could be of the same order of magnitude but it isn't a fact that that is true and in my opinion, to use the term "denier" degrades the use of the term in other contexts such as a denier of the holocaust and that is a very bad thing. Also, using the term makes it very hard for anyone to even think about questioning it. We could use the word denier for any side of any argument and it has the effect of simply suppressing thoughts, ideas and speech. I think the right type of argument to use it is for those rare cases like the holocaust and other atrocities that are historical facts not future predictions. Using it for the latter shows little respect to the former. Michael interesting post. What I do think is that most people in society now do not know how to debate. Issues are often not black or white but it seems now either people have to be a supporter of a denier on all sorts of issues. Also now people confuse debates about opinions with the moral character of somebody. I fail to see why somebodies view on climate change should have any bearing on the moral judgement you make to that person. I do feel that there are some on left who have seemingly brought back heresy. Not only do people disagree with others, that person is a bad person and sometimes I feel that if they could they would burn them at the stake.
|
|
mikeh
Member of DD Central
Posts: 499
Likes: 370
|
Post by mikeh on Jan 16, 2020 14:11:49 GMT
I think the question as posed is somewhat loaded. Do I think the BBC is right to provide educational material on climate change? Absolutely.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,812
Likes: 2,284
|
Post by keitha on Jan 16, 2020 14:14:05 GMT
Was last weeks Doctor Who, not purely a climate change episode. I certainly felt we were being lectured.
doubtless to do this they will ship tons of equipment and dozens of people around the world.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,520
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 16, 2020 14:31:12 GMT
re "I want to ask one simple question in poll, is it the BBC's place to be using its position as a public service broadcaster to be making such claims."
Certainly not whilst they continue to fly reporters all over the world even when they have a local reporter already there, or could get a feed from a local TV station. And didn't they even fly a film crew out for an interview with 'Saint' Greta?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 14:37:14 GMT
The BBC's remit towards education is well known and has been in place in various forms since the founding of the organisation. That we have a man-made crisis is well known and accepted in Europe (which I believe includes the UK geographically). This is not the case in some countries and there are still some holdouts who literally lack either the education or the moral gumption to recognise their technical position is not supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Should they do it? Yes, it is part of their contract. Should we listen and understand the message? Please do. Do we need repeated lecturing? Well yes. I recently spent time on my local towns own social media page and discovered that many people just don't understand what climate change means or what they have to do to fight back. The usual tools of education are 1) teach the kids and 2) repeat a simple message to adults because frankly, it takes a simple message to get through to a busy adult. Will people continue to operate hypocritically by both generating CO2 and wailing against it. Yes. Sadly there are limitations, but there are things you can do to mitigate your actions. For example, I seldom fly but I will generate 250kg of CO2 by a short flight this weekend. I intend to pay for a tree to be planted which will sequestrate more than 250kg of CO2 in its lifetime. The BBC or indeed any of us could do the same. Please do. If we look at another issue that they also manage is the need to introduce lesbianism into every entertainment within the first 5 minutes. Please time it. I have nothing against lesbianism I just find it remarkable that the 5 minute figure gets hit time and time again. But I'm guessing we will not have a pole about lesbianism (no snickering at the back).
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,520
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 16, 2020 14:43:51 GMT
But I'm guessing we will not have a pole about lesbianism (no snickering at the back).
Do you mean poll, or are we going the lesbian pole dancing route here?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,788
Likes: 2,735
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 16, 2020 14:54:24 GMT
I intend to pay for a tree to be planted which will sequestrate more than 250kg of CO2 in its lifetime.
Tree planting is another favourite topic of mine so I can't resist boring you with my view. We hear and are encouraged to "plant a tree" all the time. In theory, its a very good idea but why is the "and allow it to grow" bit glossed over ? I don't know the figures, but presumably a sapling that is chopped down after 5 years isn't going to balance out much CO2. Most/many species of tree (especially those native to this country) take many dozens of years before they reach maturity and then live for many hundreds if not thousands of years. I'm not sure what the solution is but surely this issue needs addressing. Somehow each tree that is planted needs to own the land it is planted on or have other guarantees to stop it being bulldozed at some point. I find it hard to believe that the very modest donation required to "plant a tree" would provide such guarantee.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 16, 2020 15:08:28 GMT
I intend to pay for a tree to be planted which will sequestrate more than 250kg of CO2 in its lifetime.
Tree planting is another favourite topic of mine so I can't resist boring you with my view. We hear and are encouraged to "plant a tree" all the time. In theory, its a very good idea but why is the "and allow it to grow" bit glossed over ? I don't know the figures, but presumably a sapling that is chopped down after 5 years isn't going to balance out much CO2. Most/many species of tree (especially those native to this country) take many dozens of years before they reach maturity and then live for many hundreds if not thousands of years. I'm not sure what the solution is but surely this issue needs addressing. Somehow each tree that is planted needs to own the land it is planted on or have other guarantees to stop it being bulldozed at some point. I find it hard to believe that the very modest donation required to "plant a tree" would provide such guarantee. Yes and woodland and forestry management is a complicated topic. I think it is far better to have well managed woodland and forests rather than people thinking they are green for planting a pine tree in their garden in West Hampstead. Even more annoying are these people who claim they are green for having a new house with a £20k 'living wall'. The garden bridge was the height of this folly.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,007
Likes: 1,829
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 16, 2020 15:11:28 GMT
I intend to pay for a tree to be planted which will sequestrate more than 250kg of CO2 in its lifetime.
And at the end of it's lifespan would then return all the accumulated carbon back into the atmosphere. Never mind, that's a problem for later generations.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 16, 2020 15:15:28 GMT
I think the question as posed is somewhat loaded. Do I think the BBC is right to provide educational material on climate change? Absolutely. Mikeh - you make an interesting point, and yes one of the BBCs original remits was to entertain and educate. Personally I find very few BBC programs actually educational any more, maybe a few but even wildlife programs seem to be more about wowing or amusing the audience rather than educating the viewer on the anatomy of a frog. You may learn that bears sometimes do a dance which the editor can match to some music, but that's about it. On climate change it feels to me that the BBC is definitely into campaigning territory here, but maybe I am biased. It is definitely impossible to run a channel with no perceived bias and having programs which are more like university lectures may appeal to me but not everybody. I would personally like the BBC to try to just report the news, rather than try to tell us what we should think about it. Of course even which news stories you cover is subject to political bias.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 15:33:47 GMT
I intend to pay for a tree to be planted which will sequestrate more than 250kg of CO2 in its lifetime.
Tree planting is another favourite topic of mine so I can't resist boring you with my view. We hear and are encouraged to "plant a tree" all the time. In theory, its a very good idea but why is the "and allow it to grow" bit glossed over ? I don't know the figures, but presumably a sapling that is chopped down after 5 years isn't going to balance out much CO2. Most/many species of tree (especially those native to this country) take many dozens of years before they reach maturity and then live for many hundreds if not thousands of years. I'm not sure what the solution is but surely this issue needs addressing. Somehow each tree that is planted needs to own the land it is planted on or have other guarantees to stop it being bulldozed at some point. I find it hard to believe that the very modest donation required to "plant a tree" would provide such guarantee. To try and manage this comment and the littleoldlady's comment below.
I think the growing of trees is important and it needs to be for 40 years minimum and then, make it into furniture, housing, etc. The Finish wood industry is now run by a single cooperative and they have a use for all four of its outputs, veneer, structural wood, and two biproduct chemicals that include a version of cloth. So all that CO2 is sequestrated in buildings and tables.Growing a tree for 5 years and burning it is just silly except as part of CO2 recycling process which takes Carbon (coal) or Oil out of the eneergy mix.
The core energy mix has to move to vectors like battery and hydrogen while the energy sources have to become sun, wind and moon.
I've spent some time discussing the cost of tree planting with the Woodland trust who have finally offered me some figures. They believe that if you plant a tree in community space (and it grows for 40 years etc) then they should cost £10 each (taking into account all the management costs over the same time). If the space also requires land purchase at arboreal rates then £15 each makes sense. Anyone who tells you £0.50 is pulling your plonker.
Hypocrasy is of course the natural state of man, "I love only my wife but if so and so made me an offer...." the sooner we all realise we are all Hypocrites the better. It is part of growing up and becoming adult. Now, what are we going to do about climate change crisis?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jan 16, 2020 15:55:10 GMT
There seems to be an awful lot of hot air in this thread, anyway My view is that the best view we have from scientists is that climate change is a significant threat to the planet. I think it is therefore reasonable for the BBC to be dedicating programming to it. Re: the poll question, as per mikeh it's too loaded a question to answer in my opinion. I don't perceive it as campaigning, but educating/informing about scientific fact. Re: wallstreet's comments, I share some of the frustration, although there can be a place for consumers to be more aware IMV, both in their own habits (probably negligible) but also in encouraging people to raise it up the political agenda. Personally, I do many of the little things we're hectored/encouraged to do, whilst also recognising that without US and China industrial output being significantly redirected then it's applying little dabs of paint with a little craft brush to the deck of the titanic. I don't have control over US/Chinese industrial output you may be surprised to hear, and nor do I have the dedication/idealism of environmental activists, so aside from doing whatever "they" tell me (reuse plastic bags etc), I'm just not going to worry about it - in the same way I no longer exercise myself about Brexit as much. It's going to happen, it's out of my control, I'm just going to have to roll with it - there is no choice! Anecdotal side note - I usually spend January in my wife's cold-Winter country, this year is no exception. From 2005-2009, I (and the locals) had taken it for granted that it was always piled with snow this time of year, often from November never mind January. There's really been very little since then, and today I have the window open instead for a bit of fresh air. I know this is not evidence, but I nonetheless find it a little bit disturbing.
|
|