LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.0 -
I don't understand - how would that not be gesture politics if they don't change their demands?TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
Their whole shtick is to get climate change to the top of the agenda.0 -
Basically, the speech boiled down to "we need to invest in new technologies so we don't have to do anything difficult to sort climate change". Which is a view, but I don't think it's the consensus view.0
-
It's a gesture about an issue. The lack of a people's assembly is not an issue, and definitely not one for which it is worth blocking the passage of electric buses and bikes as they did with one demonstration.kingstongraham said:
I don't understand - how would that not be gesture politics if they don't change their demands?TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
Their whole shtick is to get climate change to the top of the agenda.
For what it is worth, I think Greta does well. Sailing to New York was effective. She always talks about what has(n't) been done rather than what the usual empty promises.
0 -
Yes, I agree.TheBigBean said:
It's a gesture about an issue. The lack of a people's assembly is not an issue, and definitely not one for which it is worth blocking the passage of electric buses and bikes as they did with one demonstration.kingstongraham said:
I don't understand - how would that not be gesture politics if they don't change their demands?TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
Their whole shtick is to get climate change to the top of the agenda.
For what it is worth, I think Greta does well. Sailing to New York was effective. She always talks about what has(n't) been done rather than what the usual empty promises.0 -
It depends what he means, and obviously with Boris that is not always obvious, but the world needs to invest in carbon capture and storage and bolt it onto to CCGTs. It also needs hydrogen. There is currently no other option than these two. These are new technologies, but they should work.kingstongraham said:Basically, the speech boiled down to "we need to invest in new technologies so we don't have to do anything difficult to sort climate change". Which is a view, but I don't think it's the consensus view.
0 -
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's not my area of expertise, I'm just making the point that it is a legitimate and worthwhile thing that could be campaigned about.rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.
I'm also certainly not saying that the government has done what it should have. This has been pointed out repeatedly by Climate Change Committee.
0 -
And BloJo's desperate need to be liked. Same as his ridiculous 'promises' to NI business over post Brexit form fillingrick_chasey said:
Yes agreed.kingstongraham said:The Dyson/Johnson texts seem like a bit of a confected issue. Much as I think they are both twats, unless there's more to it, I think it's just a very rich Tory donor having the PM's phone number and trying to get some clarity, and the PM telling him what he needed to hear in an emergency.
Though it is reflective of the broader problems with lobbying in the UK.0 -
Classic Dom. The prikc.rick_chasey said:0 -
Coldwar Steve:
1 -
There's never any cross-department thinking. Every department ploughs their own furrow - some (such as health), needing to plan the problems partly caused by others (Transport, Education, Culture (sport) etc).rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.0 -
My mate worked in the Department of Energy & Climate Change in the civil service for a while and the policy guys are all over what needs to happen, how it needs to happen and are very forward thinking about it.TheBigBean said:
It's not my area of expertise, I'm just making the point that it is a legitimate and worthwhile thing that could be campaigned about.rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.
I'm also certainly not saying that the government has done what it should have. This has been pointed out repeatedly by Climate Change Committee.
Their challenge is trying to engineer something that is politically viable that they can get whoever is in charge to buy into that achieves the aim.
That is the challenge. It is mainly a political challenge, not a technical one.0 -
The Climate Change Committee is a non-departmental public body for this reason.yorkshireraw said:
There's never any cross-department thinking. Every department ploughs their own furrow - some (such as health), needing to plan the problems partly caused by others (Transport, Education, Culture (sport) etc).rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.
0 -
Aren't you out of a job if the standard advice on tax is just to text the PM?Stevo_666 said:
Looks like you've already saved me the effort BB. Another couple of pages that prove yet again when it comes to tax, a little knowledge is a dangerous thingTheBigBean said:I don't have the energy.
0 -
This really understates it. Climate change has lots of technical challenges. Yes, there is a published plan, but as I said upthread, some of the plan involves new technologies.rick_chasey said:. It is mainly a political challenge, not a technical one.
0 -
Sure. What I mean is I trust that there is enough collective ability to achieve the technical side of solving the challenge. In the right social/political environment, I am very confident that they can be achieved.TheBigBean said:
This really understates it. Climate change has lots of technical challenges. Yes, there is a published plan, but as I said upthread, some of the plan involves new technologies.rick_chasey said:. It is mainly a political challenge, not a technical one.
I am sceptical that the right social/political environment can be achieved before some real pain is inflicted and we're too far down the line.
The climate change equivalent of going into lockdown a month too late.
The person/people who bring the world's leaders into a position where it is politically advantageous to save the human race from itself and climate change should be feted as heroes among us, as that is the biggest challenge I see here.
There is a huge amount of behavioural, social and economic upheaval associated with preventing climate change and I don't know that there are many or any political leaders who have enough political will and capital to actually bring about enough of it to be meaningful.
0 -
It's not that bad. The government is a bit behind and I blame Brexit/Covid distractions in part for that, but things are moving in the right direction.
You need to remember than when the 2020 plan was published (10 years or so earlier) everyone including me said the same, and yet the progress in renewable energy has been incredible.
Of course, decarbonising the grid is considered one of the easier objectives, but it is a big achievement nonetheless. The behavioural, social and economic upheaval you talk of is not as bad you think it is. The worst part is the level of heating they expect people to live with.
0 -
Sure but to be honest, Britain, as well as it is doing, and it is doing very well in this respect (relatively speaking), is really a bit-part player in this.TheBigBean said:It's not that bad. The government is a bit behind and I blame Brexit/Covid distractions in part for that, but things are moving in the right direction.
You need to remember than when the 2020 plan was published (10 years or so earlier) everyone including me said the same, and yet the progress in renewable energy has been incredible.
Of course, decarbonising the grid is considered one of the easier objectives, but it is a big achievement nonetheless. The behavioural, social and economic upheaval you talk of is not as bad you think it is. The worst part is the level of heating they expect people to live with.0 -
Not a fan of this argument. The actions of the western world change the equation for the rest of the world.rick_chasey said:
Sure but to be honest, Britain, as well as it is doing, and it is doing very well in this respect (relatively speaking), is really a bit-part player in this.TheBigBean said:It's not that bad. The government is a bit behind and I blame Brexit/Covid distractions in part for that, but things are moving in the right direction.
You need to remember than when the 2020 plan was published (10 years or so earlier) everyone including me said the same, and yet the progress in renewable energy has been incredible.
Of course, decarbonising the grid is considered one of the easier objectives, but it is a big achievement nonetheless. The behavioural, social and economic upheaval you talk of is not as bad you think it is. The worst part is the level of heating they expect people to live with.
For example, in 2010 solar panels cost around €3m/MW whereas they now cost less than €200k/MW (this almost half the price the EU declared was only possible due to dumping). That price reduction has come about due to subsidies in the western world encouraging larger scale production.
As a result, in many (perhaps most) countries in the world, the cheapest way to produce electricity is now by solar. That's a stunning achievement and if any country in the world now needs electricity it is cheaper to do it with renewables.
That same approach now needs to be applied to other technologies.
0 -
Which country? I cover quite a few.Jezyboy said:
Aren't you out of a job if the standard advice on tax is just to text the PM?Stevo_666 said:
Looks like you've already saved me the effort BB. Another couple of pages that prove yet again when it comes to tax, a little knowledge is a dangerous thingTheBigBean said:I don't have the energy.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
🔥
https://dominiccummings.com/2021/04/23/statement-regarding-no10-claims-today/It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
🔥
https://dominiccummings.com/2021/04/23/statement-regarding-no10-claims-today/It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves.
Cummings does seem confident that he's got the evidence to rebut the accusations against him. I guess he knew he was working with an habitual liar, and that evidence might come in handy at some stage.0 -
Quite why Spaffer and / or his handlers would think it smart having a pop at the one who knows where most of the bodies are buried...?0
-
orraloon said:
Quite why Spaffer and / or his handlers would think it smart having a pop at the one who knows where most of the bodies are buried...?
Maybe they just aren't very good at stuff.0 -
I know you like to rant about all this corruption. However Kier has decided that this was a worthy scenario to get worked up about. So where is the benefit therefore corruption that you and Kier are so hell-bent on articulating badly.rick_chasey said:
Do any of you work for a firm who sends people around the world?john80 said:
My basic understanding is that he wanted to use some Singapore based presumably engineers to help develop this product in the UK. The worry is that if they came they would end up paying tax in the UK even though their reason for being here was to do work for the benefit of mainly the UK government. It was as not unreasonable to ask for clarification on the rules where he then used his personal contacts failing to get a response from the right government department. As an engineer if I was being asked to work in another country I would want to know I was covered for tax. 20-40 of your wage being lost matters to 95% of the population. Sure Dyson could cover this but any make up payment to employees would guess what incur more tax calculations.kingstongraham said:I don't understand the whole thing. Dyson's family holding company that was looking for special treatment for its employees has moved back to the UK now.
The company foots the tax bill so the net pay is the same. It's not that big a deal. You don't need to ask the prime minister for that ffs, let alone in the middle of a pandemic.
There is no reason why he needs to ask the PM for a favour that's not given to the thousands of companies who second people to different countries around the world.0 -
It is a public challenge not a political one. Let's face it if climate catastrophy occurs there will be large parts of the UK still inhabitable for the current population. Who is for a electric car at twice the price of a fossil one. Who is for no holidays by flight. Who is for knocking down their 100 year old house for a shiny efficient one with a air source heat pump and electricity from only green sources. These are all public choices that people are unwilling to make as 90% of the public are not flush with oodles of cash to Jose down the river on the solutions. With a bit of border control the problem is actually large sections of the world that Karen from Dunstable probably does not give two shits about if we are being truthful.rick_chasey said:
My mate worked in the Department of Energy & Climate Change in the civil service for a while and the policy guys are all over what needs to happen, how it needs to happen and are very forward thinking about it.TheBigBean said:
It's not my area of expertise, I'm just making the point that it is a legitimate and worthwhile thing that could be campaigned about.rjsterry said:
It's near enough national planning policy that heritage concerns trump energy use. It is apparently more important that old buildings are not altered than to tackle carbon emissions. There is little coordination of environmental policies with planning legislation. Planning authorities lack the expertise to assess proposed development and developers just see it as an extra cost to avoid. The current government scrapped the one bit of legislation that actually focused the various stakeholders on energy use: the Code for Sustainable Homes. Instead we have those worthless Energy Certificates drafted by a guy with a clipboard in about half an hour. So you'll forgive me if I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to doing anything more than setting an ambitious target.TheBigBean said:
Have they inconvenienced that many people? They make a lot of noise. I'm just saying that they could inconvenience people by doing something that needs attention. They wouldn't be able to get close enough, but insulating a window of the House of Parliament might draw to attention to the number of buildings with single glazing, because they are pretty or in a nice area. That's a big issue for net zero.pangolin said:
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
By the way, there are more effective ways to reduce energy use than changing all the sash windows in London to double glazing.
I'm also certainly not saying that the government has done what it should have. This has been pointed out repeatedly by Climate Change Committee.
Their challenge is trying to engineer something that is politically viable that they can get whoever is in charge to buy into that achieves the aim.
That is the challenge. It is mainly a political challenge, not a technical one.
If anything Boris knows human behaviour better than many on this forum and all of those in extinction rebellion.1 -
I've used this before but it is still as relevant as ever.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Well I must say that definitely convinces me that he isn't the sort to leak or betray confidences.rjsterry said:🔥
https://dominiccummings.com/2021/04/23/statement-regarding-no10-claims-today/It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves.
I especially like "I will not engage in media briefing regarding these issues but will answer questions about any of these issues to Parliament".0 -
kingstongraham said:Ben6899 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Possible, but there is a clear correlation between being less well off and voting Labour (and conversely, being financially successful and voting Conservative):
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/to-explain-voting-intentions-income-is-more-important-for-the-conservatives-than-for-labour/
It's not just possible, Stevo, it's an actual thing. Well off people are left- as well as right-leaning. It doesn't take a genius to understand why financially successful people tend to vote Conservative. It's just a shame the trend is such and that more people don't think about those not as fortunate as themselves.
It's about which party strikes the right balance - most people have an understanding that a decent society is something that needs to be paid for. Me personally being taxed less does not necessarily give me the best overall outcome.
It would if they made government smaller and cut wasteful spending! The US raised the debt higher and higher and some of that money went to foreign governments! All this borrowing is doing nothing but creating an artificial bubble that will eventually burst, and when it does...EEK!
Personally I don't think anyone who remained working or paid during the pandemic should have received any stimulus money, only those who were on unemployment should have received it, why did I need it? I was working and being paid! What a freaking waste, then the idiots tell us that those needing the money really need this money, like how is $1,500 or whatever the amount was going to pay for rent or a home loan they weren't able to pay for almost a year when their unemployment at the most was only $360 a week? This was a joke, the people on unemployment should have received 4 times the amount of the stimulus money so they can catch up on bills and the rest don't get a dime. The government would have spent far less doing that, it was a huge waste of money doing what they did. Now prices of food and goods is going up because our dollar isn't worth as much.
Then about 340 Billion dollars of the stimulus money went to bail out blue states that the freaking liberal politician losers ruined! https://nypost.com/2021/03/10/massive-1-9-trillion-bill-is-a-bailout-for-blue-states/
Our country has gone insane.
0
