Oh come on. It’s a question of magnitudes of damage. Nothing is without impact, but the world isn’t going to end because of people riding bikes.
It’s like the handwringing that happens whenever there is a death or injury because of reckless cycling. We’re totally mute about the thousands of people killed every year as a result of driving.
Natural global forest decay accounts for 10.9 Gigatonnes of carbon emissions per year (vs just over 8 Gigatonnes from burning fossil fuels).
We really should just cut down all the world’s forests and sequester the carbon in housing timber, and greatly reduce the world’s emissions in the process. 
It might if footage of @cynicaloldgit on a bike ever made it out into the public domain.
That’s not going to happen. I never learnt to ride one.
probably not.
i speculate that having a well travelled population would encourage understanding of each other over fear, and futher appreciation of the world.
the issue might be in the over capitolisation of travel, and whether we can find a more enviromentally sustainable way to travel.
but i land strongly on the side that travel is a net gain for humans
Ok no bike needed. Just shorts.
Note: shorts are more environmentally friendly than trousers.
It’s necessary for me to travel. Beer companies around the world need my business 
If nobody travelled,you wouldn’t be the one and only COG. 
I did not realise that the leadership election was a pay-to-play. Am I the only one who thinks that that is an extremely dangerous way to select a new leader of a political party?
not a massive fan of the ‘caught you’ type journalism in a lot of circumstances…
the economy evolves and people in power should be encouraged to shift ideas …i have no interest or idea of whether this is that situation, but the trend is worrying…
we are herding pollies into a situation where they wont change their minds on anything for fear of being ‘found out’
the other trend i have an issue with (in australia) is the press constantly trying to trip them up with cost of living figures…was a great story here in aus during the last election about how a leader needs to know off the top of his/her head…the cost of a litre of milk/petrol, loaf of bread, unemployment rate, tax law etc etc…
the leaders of a party should be judged on policy, not whether they know the nitty gritty on cost of living pressures on the ‘average working aussie’…
made an interesting read…
as much as i loath pollitics, you cant help but feel we are all playing our part in the demise of what should be a robust and sustainable political system.
Quite clearly the means testing of the winter fuel allowance is a political choice.
But again, without knowing what other changes are in the pipeline for the budget, it’s too early to say she is protecting the interests of business, banks and the super-rich at the expense of pensioners.
Especially when at the same time the cuts were announced Reeves said she was agreeing to public sector pay rises - or are they now part of the super-rich Beckett was referring to?
According to some headlines I saw earlier today the number of claims to pension credit has jumped. Which if true is good news as these are amongst the most vulnerable pensioners who need the help that the Winter fuel allowance (and Pension Credit) is meant to provide.
We still have to see whether this and anything else they have planned is going to be enough though to ensure those that do still need help don’t lose out.
Right wing press having a field day having conveniently fogotten the mess and corruption they left behind.
If labour did nothing, the Mail would still find something to moan about.
Because of house prices there are many pensioners that have more money than working people now will ever have. It’s crazy that rich pensioners received this payment for so long at the cost of billions annually.
Surely it wouldn’t have been that difficult (at some point since 1997) to means test with a higher threshold than Labour are proposing
Cutting the Winter fuel allowance was originally proposed by Sunak to protect the pension triple lock.
What I dislike about it, is that it relies on means testing which often misses the most vulnerable.
These days, its beneath people to start at the bottom and work their way up.
Wouldnt dream of buying a 1 or 2 bedroom run down flat with a view to improving it gradually, then trading up to a 2 bedroom terraced.
Where the fuck can they park the brand new £400 a month lease car?
It’s now virtually impossible for young people to get on the housing ladder. You only have to take a passing glance at what has happened to house prices and wages in the last thirty years to understand that.
It would be nice to not rub their noses in it by suggesting that it’s somehow their fault.
Any kind of means tested benefit is going to have a fuzzy edge where people who should probably get it fall just outside eligibility.
The winter fuel allowance argument is really pissing me off, because means testing it, is so obviously, transparently the right thing to do it shouldn’t even be an argument.
The Tory Press have latched on to this as a good line of attack against Reeves and Starmer, but even worse that that, is the left going all in because it somehow proves that Starmer is the Red Tory they were all determined to believe from the start. Erm. No. It shows the exact opposite. Taking away a benefit from people who don’t need it in order to protect benefits for people who do is exactly what Labour should be doing.
