I completely understand that.
As you say the UK conversation is centred around Burnham/the Government policy and rightly so. I am in complete agreement for the need to cut back our emissions and comply with already agreed commitments, which to be honest are in no way strong enough.
However, the EU seems to be rolling back on their pledges/commitments, passing it off as Business friendly so surely we should be taking it into consideration.
Are we not guilty of discussing and questioning the decisions made by our Government towards meeting its proposals and commitments, without taking into consideration of them being business friendly?
Climate control is massive, so important to the worlds future and yet the EU, can ease their emission restrictions to support (in some eyes) a Country with a heavily industrialised economy, over reliant on its car manufacturing and its natural resources.
I am in no way trying to justify relaxing the Countries commitment to reducing its emissions. I just think it needs a bit more flexibility, and that the current Government should be trusted with taking two steps back if in the long run it means 3 or 4 steps forward.
I am not going to argue against any of your points because you are right in what you say. But please try and be realistic for fuck sake and discuss something without being all dramatic.
Can you tell me how long ātwo steps backā means in time when all it is a phrase?
I am also sure you are aware that the Paris agreement aims for neutrality by 2050!! And yes, I am aware it doesnāt mean we go emission crazy now and stop December 2049 and expect everything to be all right.
So, before you self combust, why donāt you give us some sensible solutions as to how we are going to reduce emissions.
A word of warning, do not and I mean DO NOT at any point, mention to the person we are alluding to that they would make a great POLITICIAN.
I repeat! do not at any point mention, refer to, suggest, imply, hint at, jokeā¦.infact to be safe donāt even think it! Shit, Iām actually scared to finish my sentence.
It is a bitter irony that in the summer of fire in the northern hemisphere, near-term politics are compelling many well-intentioned democracies to recalibrate their āclimate ambitionā. The UK has followed a faster pathway so far than the EU in aggregate (though not as fast as some member states), so if that is the comparator you choose to use, sure, there is an argument.
From the Canadian perspective, we are a smaller economy than the UK with a larger adjacent economic power - and one run by an administration actively seeking to do damage to our economy while also undercutting the defensive structure we have relied on since 1945. So climate policy is now at best a distant third to economic growth and increased defence spending.
The brutal reality of the challenges forced on the West by Russia and America is that there is no point in thinking in the long-term if those two powers that are doing nothing to face the climate in fact overturn the existing order before any emissions reduction policy can have an effect. One needs to survive to see the long-term.
For the UK in particular (though much of Western Europe), it now seems fairly clear that the climate will be radically altered, possibly quite soon. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is now incredibly weak, and it is only a matter of time before it simply ceases moderating the Western European climate. Londonās climate will be somewhat like southern Labrador.
Well, much of Canada has a lot of mosquitoes, but the subspecies in Labrador is famously aggressive because they have such a short window of opportunity for breeding. I donāt think you would see the same effects in Europe, although if they are already there in Scandinavia (or Scotland) they might spread southward as they outcompete local species.
For the UK, I was thinking more in terms of how much of the existing housing stock can deal with average nighttime lows of -18 C in January.
Used this very argument with some climate change deniers. Iād have more success talking to a wall. Pointless exercise. Sadly, I think we will need to live through it for sufficient action to be taken. Of course itās likely to be too late by then.
I saw a video last night on how it looks like weāre on course for the strongest ever recorded El Nino. Iāll post it in the climate thread.
My understanding of the story isnāt quite how Nigel āplease talk about something other than my financesā Farage has framed it.
Zak didnāt post the picture. He was tagged in it, and had little to do with beyond accepting the tag. When he realised what was on the t-shirt he removed his tag. Itās a bit daft, and he should have taken more care, but thatās all.
Farage is being a duplicitous little cunt, as usual. He knows full well that there is nothing actionable here, and the police will decline to get involved.
He also knows his most ardent supporters wonāt give a flying fuck what the actual story is, and theyāll run with his version of events. The truth is no longer even an aspiration for these people. Heāll get to play to the crowd about Labour two tier justice despite this case, and the one is being compared to (Lucy Connelly) having nothing to do with Labour.
Honestly, Iām not nearly as angry as I should be.
What Iāve said is true. Itās 2026. If we carry on like we are until 2030, then we are locking in 2 degrees, and possibly worst considering itās around this temperature we think Methane stored in the attic tundra will start a negative loop.
So here are a few things we could do right now. We need global agreements on all of them, but we can certainly start.
An immediate ban on the sales of all new petrol and diesel powered cars. Itās absolutely fucking absurd that in 2026 I can walk into a dealership and buy a new car that locks in fossil fuel powered transport for a further 15 years. The car manufacturers have had decades to prepare for this shift, and at every turn they have cried and lobbied to push back the phase out date. No more. Sort it out now.
Mass roll out of renewables and investment in a huge green technology sector. We should be maxing out our renewable potential before we even think about digging up any more oil and gas. The price of renewables should be decoupled from the price of gas - the true price of renewables needs to be allowed to dictate a market response. We need investment in tech to drive solutions around storage, transmission, and efficiency - but we should also be doing this so we can sell that technology to the word as well. There is still time to get a foothold in the green tech market. But if we donāt, weāll end up importing all this from China.
I think weāre now at the point where we probably need to accept some nuclear as part of the mix, but fuck knows what we do with the waste. Fire it into the sun?
Widespread ban on single use plastics. Production and disposal of plastic is soon going to account for 20% of all global emission. We have to get our addiction to throw away plastic under control.
Subsidies and perks for domestic and commercial micro-generation. A while ago I worked on a campaign shortly after the feed in tariff was scrapped. The Tories did this in a purely ideological move, in response to pressure from the oil and gas lobby. That industry was starting to really fledge, when it was kneecapped. Solar panels should not be an aspirational lifestyle choice for the wealthy. If there is a roof, there should be a panel on it. I canāt think of anything more intellectually ridiculous than allowing so much abundant energy to fall on the planet totally uncaptured, and instead choose to dig up and burn stored energy that was locked up 300 million years ago, and destroy the climate in the process.
There is more I could say, and I havenāt considered diet, consumption, lifestyle, or natural carbon sinks as part of this. But there you go.
Youāve said this in the past as a dig at me, and thatās whatās annoying. I would in fact be an absolutely shit politician, totally incapable of the compromise needed to rise to high office. I wouldnāt last two minutes before I lost my rag with a member of the public and called them a cunt. Gordon Brown was spot on when he called that stupid woman a bigot.
Whatever the situation with Zak Polanski, Reform claiming an equivalence with Lucy Connelly and claiming two tier policing from Labour is deeply disingenuous.
Connelly was was charged with a crime that was introduced by Thatcher, and sentenced in accordance with guidelines revised by Johnson. All ātwo tier Keirā did was let the police follow the laws already in place.
in the summer.