Agriculture is probably the biggest one. I remember a quote from (I think) a BP rep who said that modern agriculture is essentially a method of making petrochemicals edible.
That’s not to say that is can’t be decarbonised but it’s a sector that will need a lot of help to achieve this.
i wonder if they have more effective public services? thats the key here (IMHO)
here in Victoria Aus, we have little faith left in money being handled correctly…
our latest issue is a 2bn Tax payer funded venture capital opperation run by the government, with next to zero disclosure on its opperations…
you’ll never guess who the chair is…ill save you the effort…its the ex premier, and its packed full of ex public servants…
thing is it doesnt even register a blip because its so common place…
id begrudgingly pay more tax if it meant a brighter future for my kids…but it wont, itll just mean more slop for the pigs to get thier filthy snouts into…
That’s it exactly, for me anyway. Whether its private or undertaken publicly the key is value to the public. In both instances I’d say the UK fails miserably for various different reasons.
Yep most people don’t realise that vast majority of medicines, chemicals, fertiliser, pesticides, plastics, textiles etc all come from oil and gas.
It’s why it is so frustrating that those against oil are frequently against those solutions that enable us to move away from oil.
GMOs is a great example. Fertiliser uses huge amounts of energy, accounts for something like 5% of natural gas, causes all sorts of water pollution. However the ban on these technologies prevent GMO alternatives that improve crop yield and capture nitrogen from atmosphere.
Whilst people would love to move to organic, it’s why the EUs farm to fork programme is quietly being killed as it was calculated it would no longer be able to feed the population.
It’s a conclusion I’ve come to fairly recently, as I think it’s an objectively true fact that civil disruption has frequently been deployed to great effect. Think about the suffragettes, Civil rights, apartheid etc.
But in the case of Just Stop Oil, I don’t think it’s working. Don’t know if it’s the issue, the people, where we are as a society?
To me the whole UK just seems angry these days and they lash out at anything and everything they don’t understand, don’t agree with (rightly or wrongly) or simply frustrated them.
to me its where we are at as a society…
anyside of any debate (regardless of my own stance) is now not only not debated in good faith, but just an outright slanging match of people with entrenched views
A big problem for me is that, as a society, we seem to have forgotten how to see beyond the end of our noses.
Yes, I understand they are trying to avert the climate breakdown and potential extinction of most life on Earth - probably the only life, and therefore meaning, anywhere in the galaxy - but I want to watch the snooker.
Possibly some of that is related to the origins of the various ecological movements. Some originate from the anti-nuclear (weapons) movement and are opposed to nuclear power. However, I did have a friend in the Green party in the UK who was actively pro-nuclear power as were a significant minority of the other members. There are those who come from the progressive left who see technology as a solution to problems (probably closest to my own views). Those coming from the traditional socialist left tend to view technology controlled by private corporations with mistrust. There are also conservative greens (e.g. Teals in Australia) who come from a more conservationist background.
The opposition to GMOs is an interesting one as it is opposed by the socialist left because it is controlled by corporations and the conservative branch because it undermines traditional farming lifestyles (which are in crisis anyway for reasons unrelated to GMOs).
I think its a combination of many factors. Other than the fact of being frustrated by the big corps and government who are seen as patronising when it comes to actually doing something for climate change because they are the entities who can effect a single biggest change.
But when it comes to the individual element of each human being, we all act differently on the issue even if we can agree that something needs to be done. Some might actively devote their life to this cause. Some might just actively decide to start small with changing their consumption habits like using lesser straws, lesser plastics, more public transport etc. And thats very important, that in showing people what is the largest problem facing us regarding the climate, we need to allow people to use their own ways to do their part at their own pace, some might be slower than others, but its important everyone starts doing something. But what Just Stop Oil has effectively done is send a message “nope your method is not good enough, we going to use our method and we are going to force you into our wagon because its our way or the highway”. Nobody likes being forced because all of us feels for different causes at different levels. What is important is to encourage individuals to do their part and not alienate them while trying to get the corporates to do their bloody part.
Owen Jones does:
I am inclined to agree with him on many- though not all- of his points but, sadly, with our FPTP electoral system there is no choice but to vote Labour.
On the Just Stop Oil discussion - If people are still around in 100 years, will they look back and say “Those protesters were completely wrong, if only everyone had listened to the oil companies” or will they say “It’s a shame nobody listened to the protesters, they should have been more radical”?
A bit of glue, a couple of traffic jams, a cancelled sporting event or two; what’s all that compared to the health of the only place we can live in the known universe?
I can’t remember where I read it, but it’s important to note this:
The Earth will go on fine with global warming, we won’t.
Can’t remember who said it, but: Don’t worry about saving the Earth. Try saving your own sorry arses for a change.
From every person who wants to distract from the drastic actions necessary to stop will happen if we dont take those steps.
But we won’t go on fine without the Earth.
Really? Focusing on the fact that we will face the consequences of our own actions is a distraction?
Think by your and @Limiescouse’s replies I’ve been misunderstood.
The point is the Earth will keep on spinning, orbiting the sun. The inhabitants won’t survive, that’s all.
Um is Climate Change not one part of a mass extinction event human kind is responsible for?
I’m uncomfortable with passing it off as Earth will be fine. It won’t be, not for millions of years after we’re gone or stopped raping the planet.
Apologies, just seen the following posts.
It is a statement I hear frequently in these conversations, but I have never heard it from someone who takes climate change seriously. I have only ever heard it raised by people who have opposition to every idea designed to help change our trajectory.
But I actually need my gas guzzler
Oh, so you own something made out of plastic? Hypocrite
You know, electric vehicles actually are worse for the environment. They take energy to make as well. I bet you havent even considered that the batteries require minerals to be mined. Im so smart
Yeah ok, but the earth doesnt care if we live or die