Climate change protests

[Staunton 18]

The defeat of Hilary Clinton represented the dying gasp of the neoliberal project. She, along with that basket of deplorables that included but was by no means limited to Thatcher and Major, Reagan, her husband Bill, Blair, Milliband, Osborne and Cameron, have vacated the stage to the neo-reactionaries. However, the cultural infrastructure of neoliberalism was buried deep and is still in situ, decayed but active, remaining toxic, an infected carcass.

 

There is no cause for complacency. The monsters now clamouring for our love, from Johnson to Francois, Orbán to Erdogan, Modi to Trump, are as indifferent to our human needs as their globalist predecessors.

 

As Ilkley Moor blazes in this April heatwave, we must allow the emergency of our situation to prompt our better selves to action, to embrace the message that Extinction Rebellion has inscribed in our imaginations, and seek a way forward for human and bio survival. Nothing less shall be sufficient.

[hackey lad 3,930]

1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

Do you have any qualifications as a climate scientist? Or even any relevant experience?

 

If not, your opinion isn't worth the electrons that you wasted posting it.

 

Virtually the whole scientific community agree that we are in this up

to our necks. It’s time to stop pretending that this is some kind of frippery that we can ignore and start to make real changes.

And  how are you qualified to talk about climate change ?

[Pettytom 1]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

The solution isn't for humanity to return to living like cavemen.

That’s the point in doing stuff now. Developing clean technologies that allow us to function as an advanced civilisation is the key to this.

 

There is a ton of research into clean energy going on. What we need to do is to invest in this now, whilst we still have time.

[Car Boot 10]

8 hours ago, Anna B said:

Why are we discussing Emma Thompson's 'hypocracy' or trivia like whether the flag is made out of plastic fibres, etc? 

 

This is just diverting the argument about very serious issues. It doesn't ask why no other form of less polluting, but fast travel is available, and if not, why not? ) Or why other, better substances are not always used in preference to the toxic ones.

 

Why do people always launch into people who are simply doing their best to raise important issues that need to be, and should be discussed, rather than look at the bigger picture of what they're actually trying to do,?  

The enormous carbon footprint of wealthy globe trotting people such as Dame Emma Thompson has been mentioned because, to put it simply, the rich are NOT - and can never be - a part of the solution. They are a part of the problem.

 

The effects of money cannot be discounted in the climate change debate. Wealthy people emit more carbon. Despite what good intentions they might have regarding recycling, organic practices, tree planting etc to 'offset' their carbon pollution. These things will always have a very low impact on the damage they are actually responsible for. Impact orientated research has shown time and again that the primary determinant of a person’s actual carbon footprint is income. 

 

So when Prince Harry, who belongs to the most environmentally damaging family in Europe, or Dame Emma Thompson (who will only travel business class on a jumbo jet) lecture the rest of us on carbon emissions I know that these people are carbon criminals and should be facing prosecution and imprisonment for their extravagant lifestyles that are at the expense of the planet.

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Car Boot

[Pettytom 1]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

And  how are you qualified to talk about climate change ?

Hmm.

 

Will my Chemistry and Maths degree do?

 

Or my postgrad qualifications in both areas?

 

Or 30 years of work in a variety of scientific fields, including risk management and climate science.

 

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

Just now, Pettytom said:

That’s the point in doing stuff now. Developing clean technologies that allow us to function as an advanced civilisation is the key to this.

 

There is a ton of research into clean energy going on. What we need to do is to invest in this now, whilst we still have time.

We are doing. More and more energy is being provided by renewable methods. With regards electric cars, how clean are they really? Huge lithium batteries with a 5ish year lifespan.

[staninoodle 173]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

We are doing. More and more energy is being provided by renewable methods. With regards electric cars, how clean are they really? Huge lithium batteries with a 5ish year lifespan.

Sticking plasters

What will we do when the waters gone,that will be quicker than the tech.

Water will be the new oil & quicker than some think

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 minute ago, staninoodle said:

Sticking plasters

What will we do when the waters gone,that will be quicker than the tech.

Water will be the new oil & quicker than some think

Where's water going?

[Pettytom 1]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

We are doing. More and more energy is being provided by renewable methods. With regards electric cars, how clean are they really? Huge lithium batteries with a 5ish year lifespan.

Well, the batteries are recyclable to begin with, and they produce far fewer emissions than petrol or diesel. There are fuel cell cars too, if they can be made to work, then we’ve really moved on. So, yes, electric cars are worth persevering with.

 

Electricity generation is getting cleaner too, quite quickly. We still need to do more though. Also leading the rest of the world from a tech point of view can only be a good thing economically 

[staninoodle 173]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Where's water going?

wheres it comming from?

[WiseOwl182 10]

Just now, staninoodle said:

wheres it comming from?

It's already here.

[staninoodle 173]

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Where's water going?

why are gulf states trying to turn sea water into drinking water