Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Creative Midfielder

Climate Emergency - Why has it taken so long..............

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Herman said:

Good opinion piece reiterating what has been written.

 

Yes, sadly it is very good - well-informed and accurate.

Wasted a lot time on this thread trying to debate with @Barbe bleu why although it is a theoretical no brainer that everyone would unite to act to rapidly combat climate change that in practice this isn't going to happen.

Apparently he believes that climate change denial and scepticism has been over for 30 years despite the wealth of clearly available evidence throughout that period that it is still very much alive and kicking (maybe he missed the previous US President's term of office ūüėā).

Let's hope Ian Dunt can suceed where I failed ūüėā

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Yes, sadly it is very good - well-informed and accurate.

Wasted a lot time on this thread trying to debate with @Barbe bleu why although it is a theoretical no brainer that everyone would unite to act to rapidly combat climate change that in practice this isn't going to happen.

Apparently he believes that climate change denial and scepticism has been over for 30 years despite the wealth of clearly available evidence throughout that period that it is still very much alive and kicking (maybe he missed the previous US President's term of office ūüėā).

Let's hope Ian Dunt can suceed where I failed ūüėā

I'm afraid some people simply refuse to see the evidence sitting right in front of their eyes; very much an emperor's new clothes scenario. BB's naivety is startling; as you point out, Trump as leader of the free world, and president of one of the biggest polluters causing global warming,  was at the forefront of climate change denial (CCD). Bolsonaro continues to torch millions of acres of the Amazon to create space for more cattle ranches. Scott Morrison continues to support the exploitation of fossil fuels. The UK continues to support expansion of Heathrow. I could go on ad infinitum pointing out the naivety of the view that consensus has been reached that will see effective unified global action. 

The obvious facts are that the anti-climate change lobby is, and has been for years, virtually an exclusive right-wing phenomenon as it is seen as defending free market capitalism against state interference. Despite incontrovertible evidence and near unanimity of scientific opinion the CCDs will not disappear but simply change their tactics in defending the interests of the polluters. Expect a similar approach as that adopted by the tobacco industry. Big tobacco no longer wastes its time denying its products are lethal, it simply looks for new markets and new ways in which it can continue to trade its poison. Expect governments to prevaricate and obfuscate, making bold and ubsubstantiated claims about the technological advances while continuing to defend polluting industries on grounds of economic survival and growth. Watch this speech by Scott Morrison as a prime example:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Yes, sadly it is very good - well-informed and accurate.

Wasted a lot time on this thread trying to debate with @Barbe bleu why although it is a theoretical no brainer that everyone would unite to act to rapidly combat climate change that in practice this isn't going to happen.

Apparently he believes that climate change denial and scepticism has been over for 30 years despite the wealth of clearly available evidence throughout that period that it is still very much alive and kicking (maybe he missed the previous US President's term of office ūüėā).

 

Now let's look at what I actually said and not what your blinkered and polarised reading was.

I did not say there was no denial, I said it existed but was widely derided.

I said there was a consensus that global warming was real and had been for over 30 years. 

I said that scientists and the younger generations were especially convinced.

I said that consensus did not mean 'full and total' agreement but a 'general' agreement.

I stand by each and everyone of these statements.  In fact I googled climate change consensus and found Wikipedia had an article the title of which was:

"Consensus begins to form, 1980‚Äď1988"

In fairness to you i didnt make it clear that I was concerned with the UK.  Frankly I don't know what the average Joe in the US or China, or Russia or Gabon thinks or believes.

All this was a side point to my overarching concern that the environment was in danger of becoming 'political' and that as soon as it did our contribution would be derailed.

On this point why the hell anyone truely concerned about climate change would hitch it to brexit is utterly beyond me.  Brexit is a fault line over which no one crosses. If it ever became accepted that the environment is the sole preserve of the 'left' we have no hope.

Green Internationalism is indistinguishable from green patriotism. We need to unite in this and not divide.

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid some people simply refuse to see the evidence sitting right in front of their eyes; very much an emperor's new clothes scenario. BB's naivety is startling; as you point out, Trump as leader of the free world, and president of one of the biggest polluters causing global warming,  was at the forefront of climate change denial (CCD). Bolsonaro continues to torch millions of acres of the Amazon to create space for more cattle ranches. Scott Morrison continues to support the exploitation of fossil fuels. The UK continues to support expansion of Heathrow. I could go on ad infinitum pointing out the naivety of the view that consensus has been reached that will see effective unified global action. 

The obvious facts are that the anti-climate change lobby is, and has been for years, virtually an exclusive right-wing phenomenon as it is seen as defending free market capitalism against state interference. Despite incontrovertible evidence and near unanimity of scientific opinion the CCDs will not disappear but simply change their tactics in defending the interests of the polluters. Expect a similar approach as that adopted by the tobacco industry. Big tobacco no longer wastes its time denying its products are lethal, it simply looks for new markets and new ways in which it can continue to trade its poison. Expect governments to prevaricate and obfuscate, making bold and ubsubstantiated claims about the technological advances while continuing to defend polluting industries on grounds of economic survival and growth. Watch this speech by Scott Morrison as a prime example:

 

Mr Morrison blames the developing world and not the advanced nations that have caused the problem.

His reference to China may well be accurate but does not mean it has the same relevance over the span of a century or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid some people simply refuse to see the evidence sitting right in front of their eyes; very much an emperor's new clothes scenario. BB's naivety is startling; 

 

You though all those times a student of yours writes a long essay in response to a question you didn't set?  That's what you have done there

If winning some pointless battle over who is more to blame is more important to you than actually solving the issue, then you crack on.

I'll probably always remain of the opinion thst more is acheived by working together to find mutually agreed positions that can be powerfully asserted.   You will always think that finger pointing, name calling and hectoring is the best cure.   It's pointless us discussing it further as neither of us will change on this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You though all those times a student of yours writes a long essay in response to a question you didn't set?  That's what you have done there

If winning some pointless battle over who is more to blame is more important to you than actually solving the issue, then you crack on.

I'll probably always remain of the opinion thst more is acheived by working together to find mutually agreed positions that can be powerfully asserted.   You will always think that finger pointing, name calling and hectoring is the best cure.   It's pointless us discussing it further as neither of us will change on this.

 

 

As CM pointed out, the crucial point is that your analysis is completely wrong. It takes very little internet searching to see who the climate change deniers are, and who are doing everything they can to resist imposing restrictions on their carbon emitting industries. Guess what, they are virtually all right wing governments, organisations, and free-marketeers. Your naivety remains startling if you are not able to see that identifying the culprits is essential to forcing a change of behaviour. The video I posted of Morrison making excuses to continue supporting the polluting industries is relatively moderate, if you are really so naive as to believe that Bolsonaro and Modi etc, etc, etc are all desperate to cooperate in solving the issue then you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.

BTW your first sentence is utterly unintelligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbie boy still spouting his disingenuous ****e - much as with some supposed metropolitan elite being at fault for Brexit. They failed to take the 'lower orders' with them in their critique of brexit we are told.

 An absurd attempt at distraction from the real cause. That rich and powerful people, those running Leave etc, had the means (the media) and the money to ensure their lies were not challenged.

In this incidence, Barbie is trying to put over the notion that the present level of inaction is down to those who have for years been working towards dealing with climate change. Them not joining forces with those who still deny the problem. In fact, according to Barbie, there is no history of their denying climate change.

That this troll should continue in this vein says much about his reasons for posting.... whatever name he is using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

As CM pointed out, the crucial point is that your analysis is completely wrong. 

BTW your first sentence is utterly unintelligible.

I have given absolutely no analysis about who the deniers are so it can't really be wrong in the way you describe 

You are stating that denial is an exclusively right wing phenomenon.  This might be true, but it's not remotely relevant to my point, which for the Nteenth time I will repeat: We all know climate change is real and rather than divide on this along increasingly established lines we need to speak with one voice, regardless of how we voted in 2016.

And whilst I appreciate you have some sort of psychological need to feel intellectually superior, and an even greater need to project that 'superiority', we both know you understood the first sentence, even though there is a mistake within it.

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How about instead of uniting, actually doing, by doing the little things you can, not leaving lights on, water management, ensure your home is as efficient as it can be, put a jumper on when feeling chilly instead of bunging the heating on, then if you can get a smart meter fitted, if you are changing your car actually think of the best mileage and emissions if you don’t want to go to an electric car for whatever reason, not just by put that big engined SUV when it’s just for the school run!

There’s so much everyone can actually do and by millions of small steps the massive journey to save the planet as much as we can starts.

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Indy said:

How about instead of uniting, actually doing, by doing the little things you can, not leaving lights on, water management, ensure your home is as efficient as it can be, put a jumper on when feeling chilly instead of bunging the heating on, then if you can get a smart meter fitted, if you are changing your car actually think of the best mileage and emissions if you don’t want to go to an electric car for whatever reason, not just by put that big engined SUV when it’s just for the school run!

There’s so much everyone can actually do and by millions of small steps the massive journey to save the planet as much as we can starts.

I agree with this.  We can all do little things without really affecting our lifestyle.  All these little things will add up to a lot. We can do more if we accept our lives should evolve.

But in themselves these won't be enough. Even if on paper all our changes are appropriate, we do need government action.  For example we could all switch to electric cars but without low carbon energy sources we will all be plugging into the grid at 6pm when a natural gas peaking plant will smash out as much co2 as we thought we had saved.

Ultimately all of the above can be summarised as CM and horsefly are saying (i think) that changes are best achieved by confrontation whereas I say that this approach is counter productive as confrontation (particularly if presented as another front on the brexit or left/right war) will serve only to alienate people on our side

I say 'our side' as  CM and I are in agreement on the urgency ( I'm not sure who is trotsky and who is the other one...)

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

We all know climate change is real and rather than divide on this along increasingly established lines we need to speak with one voice, regardless of how we voted in 2016.

And there you go again. Spouting the falsehood that we all "know climate change is real" (see Trump, Bolsonaro, the IEA etc), and repeating, against all the available evidence, that we can reach some unified voice to combat this most urgent crisis. No sane individual looking at the evidence could possibly think there is time to bring around the likes of Brasil, India, China, etc, etc into some cosy consensus about what needs to be done. I posted the video of Scott Morrison precisely because he is one of the more moderate voices compared to many others, but you would have to be remarkably naive not to see his speech as a clear message that he has not the slightest intention of restricting carbon polluting industries. What goes for for Morrison increases a hundred fold for likes of Bolsonaro and Modi. Of course one seeks consensus where we can, but so far the evidence is that such consensus has been dreadfully ineffective. We simply don't have the time to rely on this approach as the sole way to achieve the necessary urgent action. Countries with the will and power to do something about the crisis will need to develop strategies to cajole and coerce those resistant to change. Wealthy countries can incentivise poorer countries to turn green, while other countries like Bolsonaro's Brasil could be punsihed for rainforest destruction by bans on beef exports, for example.

Of course I expect nothing less from you than the standard ad hominem tripe about my character when it is clear you haven't got anything intelligent with which to respond. Some things never change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

If winning some pointless battle over who is more to blame is more important to you than actually solving the issue, then you crack on.

I'll probably always remain of the opinion thst more is acheived by working together to find mutually agreed positions that can be powerfully asserted.   You will always think that finger pointing, name calling and hectoring is the best cure.   It's pointless us discussing it further as neither of us will change on this.

The discussion is certainly pointless if you continue to ignore all the evidence when posting your thoughts or impressions, nor is it a 'battle' about blame - it is an attempt to explain/understand why after 50 years of increasing dire warnings from environmentalists next to nothing has been done to prevent global climate chaos.

So all I've got to add to what I've already said, is that given you believe that more can be achieved by worked together (no argument from me there) and you also believe that a consensus on this issue has in fact been in place for the last 30 years then the blindingly obvious question you should be asking yourself is  - why has this 30 years of consensus/unity produced negligible progress??

So unless you have a very, very good answer to that question, and so far I've seen no indication that you have, then I'd suggest it would be worth your while to take other peoples' views a little more seriously especially those who have considerable more knowledge and experience of this area than you have - or at least you appear to have based on your shallow and frankly ill-informed dismissal of much that has been said on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 No sane individual looking at the evidence could possibly think there is time to bring around the likes of Brasil, India, China, etc, etc into some cosy consensus about what needs to be done. 

Of course I expect nothing less from you than the standard ad hominem tripe about my character when it is clear you haven't got anything intelligent with which to respond. Some things never change. 

I have made it clear that I was talking about the UK.   We have a consensus in the UK.

And you are correct, I did put in an ad hominem attack, in response to yours.  Perhaps I should have risen above it but I dont like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I have made it clear that I was talking about the UK.   We have a consensus in the UK.

And you are correct, I did put in an ad hominem attack, in response to yours.  Perhaps I should have risen above it but I dont like you.

About time you started your childish playground antics by calling me Bill isn't it? Utter buffoon that you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 

So all I've got to add to what I've already said, is that given you believe that more can be achieved by worked together (no argument from me there) and you also believe that a consensus on this issue has in fact been in place for the last 30 years then the blindingly obvious question you should be asking yourself is  - why has this 30 years of consensus/unity produced negligible progress??

Fair question to which I have four answers

1) despite a rising population emissions have fallen considerably:Screenshot_20210812-202703_Drive.thumb.jpg.9422dc830a5a153b7a485950c5a9f888.jpg

2) technology now is far beyond that we had 30 years ago.  The price of renewable energy has fallen massively in the last decade and computers and communications are probably now capable of ironing out the obvious deficiencies in wind and solar, their predictability and reliability.

3) consensus still needs to be turned into political action and unfortunately since at least 2008 we seem to have been putting energies into short term concerns at the expense of long term considerations.

4) in the past we baulked at the big questions.  Nuclear and tidal barrages could have put us at very low CO2 levels but the balance was either found against them or they were never considered politically expendient 

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And there you go again. Spouting the falsehood that "we all know climate change is real" (see Trump, Bolsonaro, the IEA etc), and repeating, against all the available evidence, that we can reach some unified voice to combat this most urgent crisis. No sane individual looking at the evidence could possibly think there is time to bring around the likes of Brasil, India, China, etc, etc into some cosy consensus about what needs to be done.

 

This is the core of the problem - I'm genuinely not sure what BB means by 'we' any more in this context - it clearly isn't "all of us" in either the national or the international context. 

As far as a majority of 'ordinary' citizens is concerned it is probably true in quite a  number of countries and has been for quite a few years but that has still translated into zero, or at best, glacial progress - that is an unfortunate analogy as we really do all know that glaciers, all over the globe, are receding rapidly.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Creative Midfielder said:

This is the core of the problem - I'm genuinely not sure what BB means by 'we' any more in this context - it clearly isn't "all of us" in either the national or the international context. 

As far as a majority of 'ordinary' citizens is concerned it is probably true in quite a  number of countries and has been for quite a few years but that has still translated into zero, or at best, glacial progress - that is an unfortunate analogy as we really do all know that glaciers, all over the globe, are receding rapidly.

 

Indeed! The far right of the Tory party, the IEA, representatives of fossil fuel industries etc have not the slightest desire to reach consensus on what is necessary to address climate change in any significant ways. The idea we should waste time trying to cajole them into action is both stupid and reckless. All the evidence points to them using their money and energy to deny, obfuscate, and delay action. The crisis is urgent, and the only sane response is for governments to demand action to meet deadlines, such as the deadline to phase out the production of petrol driven cars. The necessary changes to avert major environmental collapse will be extremely painful for many industries and many people, the idea that they will be drawn willingly and rapidly into some comfortable consensus is for the fairies. Courageous government is what is required right now, but I suspect we will just get more waffle that delays the pursuit of the real changes that need to happen instantly (if it's not already too late which it probably is). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! The far right of the Tory party, the IEA, representatives of fossil fuel industries etc have not the slightest desire to reach consensus on what is necessary to address climate change in any significant ways. The idea we should waste time trying to cajole them into action is both stupid and reckless. All 

Once again you deliberately misinterpret what I have said.  I have not mentioned the IEA, fossil fuel industry or rhe right of the Tory party once. So why you would assume I think there is a need to sing kumbaya and hold hands with them ( or the Brazilian president or whoever or was last time) is beyond me

But as you are determined to appear morally and intellectually superior whilst scoring partisan points I'll leave the space.   Shame as this is a topic I am genuinely interested in, have strong feelings about and wanted a good debate on.

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Once again you deliberately misinterpret what I have said.  I have not mentioned the IEA, fossil fuel industry or rhe right of the Tory party once. So why you would assume I think there is a need to sing kumbaya and hold hands with them ( or the Brazilian president or whoever or was last time) is beyond me

But as you are determined to appear morally and intellectually superior whilst scoring partisan points I'll leave the space.   Shame as this is a topic I am genuinely interested in, have strong feelings about and wanted a good debate on.

It was you that said we should be seeking political consensus and not be engaged in disputes between right and left. Yet it is startlingly obvious to anyone with even the slightest level of comprehension of the issues that it is these right wing organisations that are doing everything they can to disrupt any level of consensus on the need for urgent action on climate change. Anyone claiming to want action on climate change thus has no option but to take on the very organisations that are doing their level best to prevent such action happening. I'm afraid you can't pretend to want a "good debate" on climate change and refuse to identify or discuss the organisations and people who are actively trying to prevent action against climate change happening. At best that is extraordinarily naive, at worst it is just plain duplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, horsefly said:

It was you that said we should be seeking political consensus and not be engaged in disputes between right and left.

 

 I'm afraid you can't pretend to want a "good debate" on climate change and refuse to identify or discuss the organisations and people who are actively trying to prevent action 

I'll respond to your respectful reply.

I'll be clear here my concern is with the UK and what we do.   Circumstances in Brazil or Russia etc are likely very different .

My honestly held view (backed up by even simple Google searches) is that climate change denial is almost non existent amongst academics and in the younger generations ( I'll go with 40 ish or below), who are not be fertile ground for the denial theories.

I think the general consensus on the reality of the problem means that the market and the electorate will be amenable to even greater changes than we have already seen.

In part this change will be at a personal choice level, it will be about people making little changes of the type Indy identified above.   These things are already happening and carbon emission levels are falling, you can see that very clearly in the graph above. 

These changes will not, however, be enough. There needs to be more government and industry action but if the market and the electorate is on board i won't take much to force political parties and producers to respond more fully.  It won't actually matter what the right of the tory party, the IEA or the fossil fuel industry believes, they will either change or be bypassed.

The biggest  short to medium term threat to the above though is not Nigel lawson hopelessly arguing with a UEA professor but in this getting tribal and toxic. Its already quite widely regarded as a middle class pursuit,  push it much further down the tribal routes and the number of people who refuse to identify with the environmental cause will be too great for progress to be made. 

The last thing anyone needs is for environmental politics to be the preserve of a highly vocal but ultimately powerless political party/side/movement for whom the fight is more important than the outcome and on theopposite side for there to emerge  a set of antis committed to be deliberately provocative.

I hope that in the very near future a new movement will arise,  Completely committed to the green agenda but that appeals across the whole of the politcal spectrum. And let me be clear here that there needs to be 'political' leadership, the people are moving but we do need a nudge and a push.  I think the green party have moved away from this and probably can't return to a leadership role but maybe David Attenborough is available?

 

 

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'll respond to your respectful reply.

I'll be clear here my concern is with the UK and what we do.   Circumstances in Brazil or Russia etc are likely very different .

My honestly held view (backed up by even simple Google searches) is that climate change denial is almost non existent amongst academics and in the younger generations ( I'll go with 40 ish or below), who are not be fertile ground for the denial theories.

I think the general consensus on the reality of the problem means that the market and the electorate will be amenable to even greater changes than we have already seen.

In part this change will be at a personal choice level, it will be about people making little changes of the type Indy identified above.   These things are already happening and carbon emission levels are falling, you can see that very clearly in the graph above. 

These changes will not, however, be enough. There needs to be more government and industry action but if the market and the electorate is on board i won't take much to force political parties and producers to respond more fully.  It won't actually matter what the right of the tory party, the IEA or the fossil fuel industry believes, they will either change or be bypassed.

The biggest  short to medium term threat to the above though is not Nigel lawson hopelessly arguing with a UEA professor but in this getting tribal and toxic. Its already quite widely regarded as a middle class pursuit,  push it much further down the tribal routes and the number of people who refuse to identify with the environmental cause will be too great for progress to be made. 

The last thing anyone needs is for environmental politics to be the preserve of a highly vocal but ultimately powerless political party/side/movement for whom the fight is more important than the outcome and on theopposite side for there to emerge  a set of antis committed to be deliberately provocative.

I hope that in the very near future a new movement will arise,  Completely committed to the green agenda but that appeals across the whole of the politcal spectrum. And let me be clear here that there needs to be 'political' leadership, the people are moving but we do need a nudge and a push.  I think the green party have moved away from this and probably can't return to a leadership role but maybe David Attenborough is available?

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of this but am certainly more concerned than you on the impact of the climate change deniers. The IEA, Tory right, and fossil fuel interests have an awful lot of money behind them, and an awful lot of power and influence. They will do everything in their power to delay and reduce the urgent measures needed to address climate change. Like it or not, they represent the views of far right free marketeers who abhor the idea that the state should intervene in the ways required to enforce change against their personal interests.

The tobacco industry provides a clear warning; decades after it was proved beyond doubt that tobacco caused devastating levels of ill-health and deaths, there still remains a significant industry in this carcinogen. Throughout the last 40 or so years, the industry has sought to mislead, misinform, and delay action to counter government action to restrict and destroy its trade. We simply don't have the time to allow this sort of disruption and distraction from the urgent action required to address climate change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...