LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah yes, the old "you must wear a hairshirt if you are interested in the sustainability of the human race" argument.

You cannot claim any interest in "sustainability" beyond virtue signalling if you fly on your jollies. It really is that simple. Doing your recycling and using re-usable coffee cups at Starbucks isn't going to cut it.

I mean, there’s also sustainability jobs.

But the corollary argument is if you have no interest you’re happy for them to do whatever they want?

For my sins, yes. If holiday flights are banned or severely rationed then I'll meekly submit. I won't be rioting in the street. But until then, my holiday rota will always be as full as I can get it. I wouldn't pick a CEO based on their views on sustainability beyond how it was relevant to the success of the business concerned. (An interesting development might be if "ESG" extends to the actions of staff who are off duty rather than just corporate activities. Careers have been compromised due to unwise social media posts when off duty, so maybe in ten years, staff being too enthusiastic on the holidaying front will be similarly career-limiting.)

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

Jezyboy

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

The only thing worse is exaggeration!

rjsterry

Jezyboy said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

The only thing worse is exaggeration!

Ha.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

We're all stuck on the same rock so a sense of superiority is not going to help very much.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

We're all stuck on the same rock so a sense of superiority is not going to help very much.

Fuuuuuuck. Not coming round to dinner at yours.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

We're all stuck on the same rock so a sense of superiority is not going to help very much.

Indeed which is why people point out hypocrisy.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

We're all stuck on the same rock so a sense of superiority is not going to help very much.

Indeed which is why people point out hypocrisy.

Who is claiming superiority? It's just what needs to be done. Doing as much as you can is just what you should do. There's no badge and you'll be considerably out of pocket.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

We're all stuck on the same rock so a sense of superiority is not going to help very much.

Fuuuuuuck. Not coming round to dinner at yours.

TBF, the house is a bit of a tip at the moment, but if you are ever in south London...

rjsterry

Priceless.

kingstongraham

Is he stopping things that he's made up now? Compulsory car sharing?

https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1704522548648509467?t=VADtmRUZOR86poHo1yCqSA&s=19

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

We're all stuck on the same rock so a sense of superiority is not going to help very much.

Fuuuuuuck. Not coming round to dinner at yours.

TBF, the house is a bit of a tip at the moment, but if you are ever in south London...

Why would I want to go there?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Is he stopping things that he's made up now? Compulsory car sharing?

https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1704522548648509467?t=VADtmRUZOR86poHo1yCqSA&s=19

Most measures are not heavy handed.

First.Aspect

Have they subcontracted the No. 10 communications to the National Autism Society?

Or hire Alan Partridge?

They are just brilliantly tone deaf.

kingstongraham

Did I miss when they announced the meat tax they're now stopping?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

But if a return flight is a once or twice a decade thing then it's fairly trivial compared with your other emissions.

I'll issue a disclaimer that my knowledge of the under 30s is largely limited to those working in professional jobs, or those who are Uni contemporaries of my offspring, but their holidaying habits extend way beyond a couple of return flights to Europe every decade. (And of course your figure for a "house" will be for the most extreme version of a family house containing 4 or 5 people, whereas your flight figure is for a single person.)

For example, Elder Daughter - cough cough - had five last year and four so far this year. And she's not unusual in the demographic I refer to in my disclaimer. And that's before you throw in any long haul flights, which are ruinous to any sustainable "carbon budget". So I think the question to those under 30s "demanding" a CEO interested in sustainability about their personal carbon-burning habits (of which flying is obviously just one) is a legitimate one.

To be fair to Elder Daughter, we've discussed at some length over the years the potential incompatibility between espousing a sustainable lifestyle and enjoying doing what she enjoys doing, and she has now adopted my view - keep doing it until it's banned or too expensive. (Not very eco-friendly, but avoids charges of hypocrisy!)

I will never understand why hypocrisy is considered worse than murder, despite literally no-one being free of it.

I try to avoid it. There's a reason that I don't use my car free superiority to bash people about climate change.

We're all stuck on the same rock so a sense of superiority is not going to help very much.

Fuuuuuuck. Not coming round to dinner at yours.

TBF, the house is a bit of a tip at the moment, but if you are ever in south London...

Why would I want to go there?

I've been to Edinburgh - it's only fair.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Did I miss when they announced the meat tax they're now stopping?

Jeremy Corbyn must have suggested it.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Did I miss when they announced the meat tax they're now stopping?

Jeremy Corbyn must have suggested it.

I think they must have outsourced his Twitter account to some AI bot that they are training, but it's not got past pooping on the carpet yet.

kingstongraham

He had 5 ideas on generally good things they are doing (like flip flopping back in favour of onshore wind), so needed 5 things to be against.

First.Aspect

He should increase his lists to 7. 5 isn't enough and 7 is a nice number.

rjsterry

The fifth one - also known as consequential improvements - has been part of the building regulations for about 10 years.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

The fifth one - also known as consequential improvements - has been part of the building regulations for about 10 years.

Oh stop with the facts. That has no place in politics.

focuszing723

rjsterry said:

The fifth one - also known as consequential improvements - has been part of the building regulations for about 10 years.

I've watched Grand Designs thank you very much.

TheBigBean

No idea what he said today, but I'm still amazed that there is a windfall tax on renewables above £75/MWh yet the most recent CFD clearing price was £70/MWh for onshore wind. Worth nothing that prices are expected to fall, so the CFD is well above market price. Almost a windfall profit.

tailwindhome

It takes a political leader of sublime skill to unite the car manufacturers & green lobby.

First.Aspect

tailwindhome said:

It takes a political leader of sublime skill to unite the car manufacturers & green lobby.

Ford are talking like the UK makes a blind bit of difference to their global strategy.

Most profits come from the F150, right?

Fairly sure we can ignore their indignance.

focuszing723

They're just p1$$ed they scrapped the Fiesta brand too early and fair enough really.

Jezyboy

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

It takes a political leader of sublime skill to unite the car manufacturers & green lobby.

Ford are talking like the UK makes a blind bit of difference to their global strategy.

Most profits come from the F150, right?

Fairly sure we can ignore their indignance.

UK's their 5th biggest market.

I'd say it's fair to be peeved off, businesses like certainty, and have been working to this deadline, which Starmer has said he would reinstate. Given Sunak is probably unlikely to win the next election, it feels unwise to plan to sell petrol cars in the UK beyond 2030 anyway.

Stevo_666

super_davo said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

They're the voice of the party - she could actually make a comeback.

Luckily as leader of the opposition she'll be less dangerous and could fulfill the role that Stevo wanted Corbyn to do for Labour i.e. make them unelectable.

I think Corbyn as leader of the opposition is a great example as to why you do not want a completely unelectable opposition.

It didn't do the Tories any favours as it emboldened their own nutcases, and they are still living with the consequences of that.

It didn't do the country any favours... I remember seeing the Corbyn "I'm 6/10 on the EU" interview on the Last Leg and thinking what a complete waste of space; how different things could have been with an opposition leader able to harness the anti-incumbent government vibe.

It could well be the case that Jezza lost the referendum for Remain. Imagine if JC and Labour had gone 10/10 in favour of staying in the EU...