Also in the news

[WigstonWanderer]

14 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I think it's a discussion that needs to happen, I don't think many are against the aims but the current plans will hurt the people who are already struggling even more.

And of course business as usual won’t hurt anyone 

[Carl the Llama]

24 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I think it's a discussion that needs to happen, I don't think many are against the aims but the current plans will hurt the people who are already struggling even more.

Farage's ability to consistently convince the same crowd that he has their interests at heart while doing absolutely nothing to actually help them, just tell them what to be mad at, is truly and morbidly fascinating.  

[The Horse's Mouth]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Farage's ability to consistently convince the same crowd that he has their interests at heart while doing absolutely nothing to actually help them, just tell them what to be mad at, is truly and morbidly fascinating.  

Eh? I voted remain. What can farage do in that case anyway he's not an elected member of parliament. Whether he has alterior motives or not it's an important question to raise on the plan in its current form as a lot of people will feel the costs of this and not to people making the decisions

[Carl the Llama]

9 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Eh? I voted remain. What can farage do in that case anyway he's not an elected member of parliament. Whether he has alterior motives or not it's an important question to raise on the plan in its current form as a lot of people will feel the costs of this and not to people making the decisions

You're doing the same thing everyone did with Johnson where they chose to ignore his history of deceit and ineptitude then act all shocked when he turned out to be a useless prevaricator when the country needed a leader.  Farage was an elected MEP for a long time and consistently chose not to use his platform to advance the causes of, say, Britain's fishermen despite being on the fisheries council as part of his day job.  The same man would go on to parade himself on a flotilla of British shipping vessels claiming to want to leave the EU for their benefit, look how that's turned out for our fishing industry.

[The Horse's Mouth]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You're doing the same thing everyone did with Johnson where they chose to ignore his history of deceit and ineptitude then act all shocked when he turned out to be a useless prevaricator when the country needed a leader.  Farage was an elected MEP for a long time and consistently chose not to use his platform to advance the causes of, say, Britain's fishermen despite being on the fisheries council as part of his day job.  The same man would go on to parade himself on a flotilla of British shipping vessels claiming to want to leave the EU for their benefit, look how that's turned out for our fishing industry.

But I'm not talking about farage I'm talking about the issue he's proposed which is an issue?

[ajthefox]

On 04/03/2022 at 01:27, Leicesterpool said:

https://fb.watch/bx92MxzBLU/ cant believe this still goes on.

That is absolute madness, I can't believe it either. 

 

If they fought to the death you could at least argue they're all doing the rest of us a Darwinist favour...

[Carl the Llama]

8 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

But I'm not talking about farage I'm talking about the issue he's proposed which is an issue?

It's already a discussion though, governments are already struggling with the question of how to achieve net zero without crippling the economy, in my view it's a large reason why progress towards cleaner energy has been so slow.  It's not something we need Farage sticking his nose into and riling people up against just for the sake of it (and the money that the TV show and public appearances brings).

[LiberalFox]

With Farage it's just painfully obvious he helps himself to a portion of the population who have zero critical thinking skills. I have literally no idea how you counter that. Same with Trump. 

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

With Farage it's just painfully obvious he helps himself to a portion of the population who have zero critical thinking skills. I have literally no idea how you counter that. Same with Trump. 

QED in your reps there

[The Horse's Mouth]

53 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

With Farage it's just painfully obvious he helps himself to a portion of the population who have zero critical thinking skills. I have literally no idea how you counter that. Same with Trump. 

Tbf, kinda ironic when you support the party which has propped up this decade of Tory rule. Thanks for that 

[Dahnsouff]

24 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Tbf, kinda ironic when you support the party which has propped up this decade of Tory rule. Thanks for that 

Or perhaps said party has even less reason to align itself with another party, concerning on all counts

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I think it's a discussion that needs to happen, I don't think many are against the aims but the current plans will hurt the people who are already struggling even more.

Right. There are two things though:

 

- Farage isn't suggesting a referendum on the plans to get to net zero, he's suggesting one on the very idea being tried at all. This is obvious considering what he suggests as a replacement (coal and shale gas). The only possible reason for this is that he doesn't consider carbon emissions and the increased global temperature they drive to be a threat to the future in spite of all the scientific evidence.

- And with respect to that matter, the discussion is rather simple. "Help us transition our energy sources with government aid to help you or at the very best expect and be partly responsible for a billion climate refugees or at worst the downfall of most of human civilisation within the next few decades. Your choice." Of course, the framing should be rather more diplomatic than that but that is the choice that exists.

[The Horse's Mouth]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right. There are two things though:

 

- Farage isn't suggesting a referendum on the plans to get to net zero, he's suggesting one on the very idea being tried at all. This is obvious considering what he suggests as a replacement (coal and shale gas). The only possible reason for this is that he doesn't consider carbon emissions and the increased global temperature they drive to be a threat to the future in spite of all the scientific evidence.

- And with respect to that matter, the discussion is rather simple. "Help us transition our energy sources with government aid to help you or at the very best expect and be partly responsible for a billion climate refugees or at worst the downfall of most of human civilisation within the next few decades. Your choice." Of course, the framing should be rather more diplomatic than that but that is the choice that exists.

I agree an actual referendum on the subject is bloody daft, I don't think farage is a denier though I thought he had a pretty green track record but I could be wrong. But I agree with argument, as projected currently we're going to be worse off and yet still be importing from countries that mostly contribute to the majority of the pollution in the world, I think that's the main concern currently and needs further clarification with it only being 8 years that they want this goal to be reached.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I agree an actual referendum on the subject is bloody daft, I don't think farage is a denier though I thought he had a pretty green track record but I could be wrong. But I agree with argument, as projected currently we're going to be worse off and yet still be importing from countries that mostly contribute to the majority of the pollution in the world, I think that's the main concern currently and needs further clarification with it only being 8 years that they want this goal to be reached.

I'm sorry, but I think that the "solutions" he speaks of in his article speak for themselves here.

 

Of course there is a point about other places being shit so why bother, but engaging them in a communal race to the bottom rather than trying to convince them the high road is a better option isn't going to end anywhere but badly. If the argument is financial...well, that's where government has to actually step in and help. Cost does not negate necessity - not in this case.

[WigstonWanderer]

10 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I agree an actual referendum on the subject is bloody daft, I don't think farage is a denier though I thought he had a pretty green track record but I could be wrong. But I agree with argument, as projected currently we're going to be worse off and yet still be importing from countries that mostly contribute to the majority of the pollution in the world, I think that's the main concern currently and needs further clarification with it only being 8 years that they want this goal to be reached.

The problem is that the cost of global inaction is likely to be much greater.

 

You only have to look at the catastrophes occurring over in the eastern states of Australia. Huge areas flooded after massive bushfires in recent years threaten to effectively make some areas uninhabitable. Whilst fire and flood are naturally occurring here, there is little doubt that the intensity and frequency of such events is rising sharply, with records breaking year on year.

Edited 7 March 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[The Horse's Mouth]

27 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The problem is that the cost of global inaction is likely to be much greater.

 

You only have to look at the catastrophes occurring over in the eastern states of Australia. Huge areas flooded after massive bushfires in recent years threaten to effectively make some areas uninhabitable. Whilst fire and flood are naturally occurring here, there is little doubt that the intensity and frequency of such events is rising sharply, with records breaking year on year.

Yeah I agree with that, but the problem is we aren't responsible for the majority of the pollution in the world, that's an eastern problem. Currently we're set to be confirming ourselves to have even tougher lives post 2030 with the biggest culprits not aiming for the same goals, so it's going to be moot.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Yeah I agree with that, but the problem is we aren't responsible for the majority of the pollution in the world, that's an eastern problem. Currently we're set to be confirming ourselves to have even tougher lives post 2030 with the biggest culprits not aiming for the same goals, so it's going to be moot.

Personally I'd rather not accept the (relatively) prompt downfall of human civilisation (in a worst case scenario) as a fait accompli.

Edited 7 March 2022 by leicsmac

[Heathrow fox]

23 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Yeah I agree with that, but the problem is we aren't responsible for the majority of the pollution in the world, that's an eastern problem. Currently we're set to be confirming ourselves to have even tougher lives post 2030 with the biggest culprits not aiming for the same goals, so it's going to be moot.

It’s our problem.They make the crap we buy that we don’t need

[WigstonWanderer]

Also the per head greenhouse gas and other pollution generated by western societies far exceeds those of the east, particularly the US and Australia, not to mention the historical pollution that brought us to this point.

 

The west has a duty to take a leadership role and is best placed to do so.

[WigstonWanderer]

Since the start of 2020 there seem to have been so many problems. I can’t believe the world can go to shit so quickly.

[SecretPro]

Just had enough.

[SpacedX]

5 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Also the per head greenhouse gas and other pollution generated by western societies far exceeds those of the east, particularly the US and Australia, not to mention the historical pollution that brought us to this point.

 

The west has a duty to take a leadership role and is best placed to do so.

Added to which - the cost of war project found the US military pollution alone had accounted for 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2001, which amounts to 257 million passenger cars annually. They identified this output as higher than the emissions from entire countries such as Sweden, Morocco, and Switzerland and if the US military was a nation state, it would rank as the 57th biggest polluter in the world.

 

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Summary_Pentagon Fuel Use%2C Climate Change%2C and the Costs of War (1).pdf

[nnfox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60652664

 

Tower block on fire in London.  I hope everyone is OK.  

[ealingfox]

 

 

[leicsmac]

Korean election day today.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60643446

 

Just unfortunate that so many young blokes are turning to misogyny and blaming problems for them created by men (the mandatory two-year draft, economic and job-seeking difficulties) on women instead.