As much as I disagree with the tactics of the "insulate my portfolio of houses for rent for free mob" chucking a bunch of ink over someone is unacceptable
As much as I disagree with the tactics of the "Mad Ink Blotter of Old London Town", sitting on a motorway slip road to force the Government into making a meaningful statement that won't save the world, even if they did it twenty years ago, is unacceptable.
Those are your words not mine . Amongst those protesting are genuine people Unfortunately like everything else it gets hijacked by others with a separate agenda
Spot on. And because their genuine causes are overlooked for cheep political points, there true voices get lost in the ether, and their credibility gets lost in the tumult of anti government hubub. THEY should never have let this happen to them.
Hey. Why are these patronising virtue signallers calling a grown adult body with a vagina (Lancet, June 2021) a child? Why are these creepy footophiles fantasising that she is a little kid, when she is now eighteen years old? Do they still dress her up in school uniform and sob because they can't stop her from growing up? And why are posters on this forum posting videos that infantalise a very serious young woman? She should be treated with respect. Greta is OK. It is the people who are exploiting her that are a problem. And a very creepy problem at that.
Well, as the UK is the country that started the whole situation, maybe that is quite a reasonable, if not to say moral, stance.
Yes, everyone can see that the world would be a far better place if the industrial revolution had never happened
A pretty dumb response. The UK, by virtue of leading the way with the IR, has already contributed much more to the climate crisis in the way of emissions than most other countries. A consequence of the IR has been dangerous levels of carbon emission into the atmosphere; those countries that industrialised earliest both enjoyed the biggest benefits and have contributed the most damage over more than 200 years. To suggest that it is quite correct, indeed moral, to expect those countries to now take the lead in efforts to repair such damage in no way leads to the conclusion that the IR was detrimental in general. However, if adequate steps are not taken in time to prevent a potential global catastrophe, the question would be posed: were the (300 years' worth) benefits of the IR worth destroying the inhabitability of the Earth? The required solution is sufficient collective global political will until such time as the technological developments that we know human intelligence will come up with can salvage the future.
I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Britain, Europe and the USA - the countries at the forefront of the industrial revolution - are taking the lead in attempting to tackle the climate crisis, wouldn't you agree? And to put your mind at rest re 'destroying the inhabitability of the Earth' - it is complete nonsense to suggest that the planet is going to become uninhabitable any time soon - not this side of the next 150 million years anyway, so try not worry about it too much
You do wonder whether the best time and place for the conference was Glasgow in November. Aftee visiting Glasgow this time of year many people would conclude that global warming doesn’t seem a bad idea.
Your original comment seemed to imply how laudable it is that we are going as far as we are in our commitments. And whilst it is laudable, I was purely commenting that in the longer term view, our actions are the minimum we should be expected to contribute. As for your comment on the inhabitability or otherwise of the planet; what effect do you think a 3 degree increase in global climate is actually going to have on many areas of the planet that will become uninhabitable for humanity? Or does it not matter that most of, for example, Bangladesh is inundated? Even a total climatic meltdown will still allow numerous micro-organisms to inhabit the Earth....but we're not really talking about that are we?
My original comment implied that while the big 4 emitters continue to put economic growth ahead of their commitment to reduce emissions our aim of achieving net zero is fairly pointless.
A lot of that activity in China and India is on behalf of companies and countries from the wider World. So it’s not just a question of the domestic use of countries like the UK, France, Germany, Japan and doubling up, the US, it’s about the World they utilise.
But necessary & moral nonetheless. Especially as 3 of them have still not contributed as much to the problem as we have....yet.
I'm not sure we can claim any moral high ground when achieving our emissions targets relies to a great extent on 'off-setting' schemes anyway
One bit of good news - if COP26 really does represent the last chance to save the world presumably there won't be a COP27
I'm stating an opinion. All the evidence you might need of that opinion is provided in the fact that I stated it.
