BOTH main political parties are a disgrace

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

15 hours ago, Petriix said:

Let's not get caught up in false equivalence. The tories have been an unmitigated disaster in everything they've done in 13 years of power, not least trebling the national debt while giving us absolutely nothing to show for it. Yes, Labour are pretty rubbish but, at this point, I'd take 'pretty rubbish' over 'utterly reprehensible'.

This.

The current insidious 'attack' line of the Tories is simply we're crap but the alternatives are worse. It obviously gains some traction in certain parts despite no alternative being in power for 13 years! Ergo the 'attack' line is without any credence but simply a disingenuous comment designed to undermine the opposition not on facts but feelings. Straight from tactics used in the Brexit referendum. Don't fall for it..

The other sly attack line again parroted by some is that SKS has no policies. Again total nonsense.

Daft isn't it? Trying to manipulate the base electorate.

[Thumbbass 319]

I would honestly trust chatGPT to run the country better than another treachorous crowd of self-serving privately schooled career politician morons.

We're living in dustbin fire UK, a Boris Johnson creation, with willing support from David Cameron and his box of matches gleefully thrown as he left the building. Sunak rubber stamping more oil and gas, lying about where it will actually go, but not sufficiently funding the new windfarm sites to counter-balance is as short sighted as this government has been throughout. Not even mentioned Liz Truss's economics masterclass. Let's get this bunch of actual crooks out.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Everything that is happening to our political string duet, has come about because real base democracy has never existed. We have rogue MP's being washed dry by the media for x y or z, because there is no way for elected reps to be re called if they embarrassed themselves or have done nothing to serve the constituency they  were elected to represent and support.

Our MP's are addicted to power because party politics has a tight grip on what they allow voters and what not, hence their rejection of giving us a choice on a truly proportional system and gave us an ultimatum, take it or leave it option, the resulting public debate on the options divided the population even further. which brings me to their tactics and that of the prevailing media barons. As long as they are able to play people against each other, without providing any real solutions to our needs, we will forever be divided. Using tax politics/policies further divides us, as they will always favor those who are donating to their party and those party members who have clout, such as County cllrs. and establishment individuals who have deeply in-bedded themselves into the system and are benefiting from the hand outs of our taxes to them for projects such as HS2.

The UK is incompetent when it comes to large national projects and relies on con/insultants and favourite operators to make it work, by having all liabilities paid for by public taxes, those who are in charge of their finances, the banks we bailed out in 2008, are taking massive cuts from developers making projects hellishly expensive and allowing insurance companies and loss adjusters and and and, a long line of hangers on, to all benefit from a mega expensive public projects.

Its like a pile of muck attracting flies.

Elections are superfluous now as no real choice exist, because of cheating by established parties, well practiced by all of them, will always end up with the same expensive pendulum politics, were one parties policies and wants is being torn down by the next elected incumbent, resulting in the same dull control freakery and secrecy as existed before the election.

I prefer a random selection of Individuals, chosen annually form NI numbers in a constituency, to serve for a year and then be replaced by a random selection of the next person, ideally gender balanced. One year would make it impossible for corruption to get established and a recall petition of some 30% of voters in a constituency would trigger an automatic re selection.

Our national politics would dramatically change. Gone are the 300plus million it costs to undertake a very old fashioned election, no more paid counters or a need for political parties, no more lies at the doorstep.

Parliamental debate and or policy decision making would be prioritised according to what voters decide to be the most important issues are, and what would be left of the civil service would be grouped into these policy areas so they can serve to electorate as well. Lobbying for attention and support from outside bodies/individuals would cease, past positions and or services relevance could be kept in 'support think tanks', lets see who want to volunteer their services or share their expertise.

Without a different electoral system change will only come about by insurrection and or a revolution/war. But the latter is currently putting a stop to all electoral activities.

lets debate...

 

[Bert 236]

The country has gone to the dogs since the saintly Baroness Thatcher was removed from power. What a woman she was 🥰🥰

[canarybubbles 1,937]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

With the industrial revolution our nation set the ball rolling. In that sense it is our problem to solve. A key component of that was Railways, pity then we set out to destroy them 60 years ago. A much better transport option than heaps of electric cars  which doubtless involve heaps of CO2 in their production cycle plus other horrible environmental considerations and apparently require heaps more water to extinguish a fire and 2 fire engines rather than 1 in attendance. 

Plus they kill about 1.3m a people every year in accidents, according to the WHO.

[duke63 545]

I love how people say ‘but the climate has always changed’. Well yes it has but not like it has in the last 30 years unless some disaster has or is occurring. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by duke63

[cambridgeshire canary 6,782]

1 hour ago, duke63 said:

I love how people say ‘but the climate has always changed’. Well yes it has but not like it has in the last 30 years unless some disaster has or is occurring. 

"Climate change is a hoax"

"Ok, climate change is real but it's always happened" <-You are here

"Ok, climate change is causing damage but here's why it's a good thing"

[duke63 545]

3 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

"Climate change is a hoax"

"Ok, climate change is real but it's always happened" <-You are here

"Ok, climate change is causing damage but here's why it's a good thing"

If anyone thinks living in 40+c heat is a good thing or the tropical style storms we have had in France today is a good thing then they are even more stupid than I thought. 
Human life is not sustainable for long in these conditions. 

[Canary Jedi 589]

On 01/08/2023 at 20:12, Nuff Said said:

Sorry, but that is such a lazy attitude. I’ve been involved in local politics for a few months (I got asked to stand as a council candidate otherwise there wouldn’t have been a candidate for one of the parties on the ballot paper - I didn’t win) and there are are a lot of hard working, well-meaning people who do a lot for their community. And while I obviously have a biased viewpoint, that goes for all the main parties. Yes, there are idiots and self-centred fools (mainly in the other parties, obvs), but that just represents wider society. Don’t look at those who hog the headlines and assume they are indicative of everyone involved.

Not lazy at all. Guy Fawkes wasn’t lazy!

[Foxy2600 305]

On 02/08/2023 at 12:49, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Everything that is happening to our political string duet, has come about because real base democracy has never existed. We have rogue MP's being washed dry by the media for x y or z, because there is no way for elected reps to be re called if they embarrassed themselves or have done nothing to serve the constituency they  were elected to represent and support.

Our MP's are addicted to power because party politics has a tight grip on what they allow voters and what not, hence their rejection of giving us a choice on a truly proportional system and gave us an ultimatum, take it or leave it option, the resulting public debate on the options divided the population even further. which brings me to their tactics and that of the prevailing media barons. As long as they are able to play people against each other, without providing any real solutions to our needs, we will forever be divided. Using tax politics/policies further divides us, as they will always favor those who are donating to their party and those party members who have clout, such as County cllrs. and establishment individuals who have deeply in-bedded themselves into the system and are benefiting from the hand outs of our taxes to them for projects such as HS2.

The UK is incompetent when it comes to large national projects and relies on con/insultants and favourite operators to make it work, by having all liabilities paid for by public taxes, those who are in charge of their finances, the banks we bailed out in 2008, are taking massive cuts from developers making projects hellishly expensive and allowing insurance companies and loss adjusters and and and, a long line of hangers on, to all benefit from a mega expensive public projects.

Its like a pile of muck attracting flies.

Elections are superfluous now as no real choice exist, because of cheating by established parties, well practiced by all of them, will always end up with the same expensive pendulum politics, were one parties policies and wants is being torn down by the next elected incumbent, resulting in the same dull control freakery and secrecy as existed before the election.

I prefer a random selection of Individuals, chosen annually form NI numbers in a constituency, to serve for a year and then be replaced by a random selection of the next person, ideally gender balanced. One year would make it impossible for corruption to get established and a recall petition of some 30% of voters in a constituency would trigger an automatic re selection.

Our national politics would dramatically change. Gone are the 300plus million it costs to undertake a very old fashioned election, no more paid counters or a need for political parties, no more lies at the doorstep.

Parliamental debate and or policy decision making would be prioritised according to what voters decide to be the most important issues are, and what would be left of the civil service would be grouped into these policy areas so they can serve to electorate as well. Lobbying for attention and support from outside bodies/individuals would cease, past positions and or services relevance could be kept in 'support think tanks', lets see who want to volunteer their services or share their expertise.

Without a different electoral system change will only come about by insurrection and or a revolution/war. But the latter is currently putting a stop to all electoral activities.

lets debate...

 

Binner! Let’s not cause u is a proper w a n k e r

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

20 hours ago, Foxy2600 said:

Binner! Let’s not cause u is a proper w a n k e r

Always entertaining to witness Foxy aspiring to reach the intellectual high ground 😀

Edited August 4, 2023 by Creative Midfielder

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

On 02/08/2023 at 16:30, duke63 said:

I love how people say ‘but the climate has always changed’. Well yes it has but not like it has in the last 30 years unless some disaster has or is occurring. 

Have a scan through the pages of the following:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/

[duke63 545]

17 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Have a scan through the pages of the following:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/

I’ve lived in this earth for over 60 years now. The climate has changed a fair bit in my lifetime from my own experiences not from stats or reporting by people with an agenda. 
 

Try spending a summer in Italy or Spain in 40+c. The local people are seeing their climate changing to an extent they cannot work in those temps. 

Climate change denial is being funded by those with a vested interest in it carrying on. That is the oil and energy companies.

Don’t get taken in by ****. If you have kids or grandkids, think about their future in 30+ years time. 
 

 

 

 

[Herman 9,819]

21 hours ago, duke63 said:

I’ve lived in this earth for over 60 years now. The climate has changed a fair bit in my lifetime from my own experiences not from stats or reporting by people with an agenda. 
 

Try spending a summer in Italy or Spain in 40+c. The local people are seeing their climate changing to an extent they cannot work in those temps. 

Climate change denial is being funded by those with a vested interest in it carrying on. That is the oil and energy companies.

Don’t get taken in by ****. If you have kids or grandkids, think about their future in 30+ years time. 
 

 

 

 

This has been going on too long. Too much dark money and self interest (greed) stopping what should be done.

 

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

On 05/08/2023 at 11:07, duke63 said:

I’ve lived in this earth for over 60 years now. The climate has changed a fair bit in my lifetime from my own experiences not from stats or reporting by people with an agenda. 
 

Try spending a summer in Italy or Spain in 40+c. The local people are seeing their climate changing to an extent they cannot work in those temps. 

Climate change denial is being funded by those with a vested interest in it carrying on. That is the oil and energy companies.

Don’t get taken in by ****. If you have kids or grandkids, think about their future in 30+ years time. 
 

 

 

 

Yes, I have kids and grandkids and I care very much for their future.

People like yourself are being taken in, dukey -- Net Zero measures are way too costly - Wind & solar through inefficiency is constantly having to be subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of millions. 

I'm not denying climate change- There's always been climate change and there'll always be climate change -- it's how much is manmade that sceptics question and they should because even if the manmade element of climate change wasn't an imaginary problem cooked up for ideological reasons by activist scientists, shyster politicians, green campaigners and crony capitalists, there's absolutely no evidence that it's within mankind’s ability to control the climate by reducing industrial CO2 output. 

Four years ago the useless Theresa May and co signed a £1 trillion suicide note committing the UK to Net Zero decarbonisation by 2050 -- I'm sure you'll agree that £1 trillion of public expenditure without very serious scrutiny was f*cking stupid and how does this decision make any sense when all the world’s major economies aren't following suit?

The world’s biggest producers of CO2 are China, the US and India and they're not playing ball, so this Net Zero decarbonisation by 2050 is a hopeless aspiration.

Here, according to Terence Corcoran, are the kind of measures it would entail:

    On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort illustrated in the graph takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed by the zeroists would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

    University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. “There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.” On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

    If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

Dukey  -- I love all things nature and I practise sensible, affordable and effective conservation where my businesses are concerned --- The utopian eco-loon projects that your ilk approve of are expensive, poorly considered, wasteful and damaging policies that future generations will struggle to live through and pay for.

If you think manmade, climate change sceptics are just conspiracy theorists and you have no interest in what they have to say, why would you expect them to take you seriously? -- Manmade, climate change sceptics would probably be more interested if you British, eco loon activists took your preachy protestations to China, the US, India and Japan.

You need to justify throwing British taxpayers money at what might be a nonexistent problem.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[Herman 9,819]

 

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

7 hours ago, Herman said:

 

Yep, sadly I think that unless we succeed in somehow stopping dark money having any impact on our politics then as a country we are pretty much doomed, and in reality the chance of us ever achieving that is pretty close to the square root of b*gger all. 😧

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

On 07/08/2023 at 19:16, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Yes, I have kids and grandkids and I care very much for their future.

People like yourself are being taken in, dukey -- Net Zero measures are way too costly - Wind & solar through inefficiency is constantly having to be subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of millions. 

I'm not denying climate change- There's always been climate change and there'll always be climate change -- it's how much is manmade that sceptics question and they should because even if the manmade element of climate change wasn't an imaginary problem cooked up for ideological reasons by activist scientists, shyster politicians, green campaigners and crony capitalists, there's absolutely no evidence that it's within mankind’s ability to control the climate by reducing industrial CO2 output. 

Four years ago the useless Theresa May and co signed a £1 trillion suicide note committing the UK to Net Zero decarbonisation by 2050 -- I'm sure you'll agree that £1 trillion of public expenditure without very serious scrutiny was f*cking stupid and how does this decision make any sense when all the world’s major economies aren't following suit?

The world’s biggest producers of CO2 are China, the US and India and they're not playing ball, so this Net Zero decarbonisation by 2050 is a hopeless aspiration.

Here, according to Terence Corcoran, are the kind of measures it would entail:

    On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort illustrated in the graph takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed by the zeroists would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

    University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. “There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.” On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

    If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

Dukey  -- I love all things nature and I practise sensible, affordable and effective conservation where my businesses are concerned --- The utopian eco-loon projects that your ilk approve of are expensive, poorly considered, wasteful and damaging policies that future generations will struggle to live through and pay for.

If you think manmade, climate change sceptics are just conspiracy theorists and you have no interest in what they have to say, why would you expect them to take you seriously? -- Manmade, climate change sceptics would probably be more interested if you British, eco loon activists took your preachy protestations to China, the US, India and Japan.

You need to justify throwing British taxpayers money at what might be a nonexistent problem.

 

Typical Tory wnaker. The cost. And don't bring China etc into it. You lot couldn't even debate with the EU, you just did a Nelly the Elephant. How can you challenge China? Blame them for climate change. I assume you are denying it has anything to do with what we have been doing for the last hundred years. That is what real denying is about. That we were one of the major contributors to global warming but you don't want us to help with restoring the balance.

That is why you fcuked of this site for so long when your Tory wnak mates fcuked up Brexit, the economy and immigration. Now you have reappeared full of your usual Guido inspired siht but still have nothing to contribute.

[duke63 545]

On 07/08/2023 at 20:16, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Yes, I have kids and grandkids and I care very much for their future.

People like yourself are being taken in, dukey -- Net Zero measures are way too costly - Wind & solar through inefficiency is constantly having to be subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of millions. 

I'm not denying climate change- There's always been climate change and there'll always be climate change -- it's how much is manmade that sceptics question and they should because even if the manmade element of climate change wasn't an imaginary problem cooked up for ideological reasons by activist scientists, shyster politicians, green campaigners and crony capitalists, there's absolutely no evidence that it's within mankind’s ability to control the climate by reducing industrial CO2 output. 

Four years ago the useless Theresa May and co signed a £1 trillion suicide note committing the UK to Net Zero decarbonisation by 2050 -- I'm sure you'll agree that £1 trillion of public expenditure without very serious scrutiny was f*cking stupid and how does this decision make any sense when all the world’s major economies aren't following suit?

The world’s biggest producers of CO2 are China, the US and India and they're not playing ball, so this Net Zero decarbonisation by 2050 is a hopeless aspiration.

Here, according to Terence Corcoran, are the kind of measures it would entail:

    On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort illustrated in the graph takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed by the zeroists would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

    University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. “There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.” On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

    If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

Dukey  -- I love all things nature and I practise sensible, affordable and effective conservation where my businesses are concerned --- The utopian eco-loon projects that your ilk approve of are expensive, poorly considered, wasteful and damaging policies that future generations will struggle to live through and pay for.

If you think manmade, climate change sceptics are just conspiracy theorists and you have no interest in what they have to say, why would you expect them to take you seriously? -- Manmade, climate change sceptics would probably be more interested if you British, eco loon activists took your preachy protestations to China, the US, India and Japan.

You need to justify throwing British taxpayers money at what might be a nonexistent problem.

 

I’m not the one being conned, you are. 
 

Spain and Portugal now facing their third extreme heat wave of the summer and massive forest fires. 
 

Italy has had its second summer of 40c temperatures. 
 

Humans cannot function for long once the ambient temperature is above the body temperature of 37c. 
 

We were in Italy last summer during their heatwave. The locals said it was unbearable. How long before they decide they need to move elsewhere to be able to live a normal life? it will make the current channel migrants numbers look minuscule in comparison. 
Factor in that when the weather does break they get monsoon style rain. It’s not conducive to growing food or living as we do now. 
 

it’s you that has your head in the sand. 

Come back in 5 years and still tell me I am wrong and you are right  

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by duke63

[duke63 545]

And just to add that China spends more on renewable energy investment per annum than the rest of the world put together so they are not ignoring the problem. 
They build 1800km of high speed electric railway track each year. 
Meanwhile Britain can’t build just over 100 miles of the same in 20 years. 

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

2 hours ago, duke63 said:

And just to add that China spends more on renewable energy investment per annum than the rest of the world put together so they are not ignoring the problem. 
They build 1800km of high speed electric railway track each year. 
Meanwhile Britain can’t build just over 100 miles of the same in 20 years. 

Exactly so, and to return to the Chinese level of emisions which Jools/Hooks claims to be so concerned about - they are not genuinely the responsibility of just the Chinese. The only reason our figures 'appear' to be so low is that we, along with many other countries, have pretty much given up manufacturing anything and have sub-contracted/offloaded the manufacture of all our stuff, and the associated emissions, to China.

On top of that, there is a massive chunk of emissions incurred by transporting the stuff once made back to the UK, which should by rights be included in our emissions total but in fact are totally ignored and don't feature at all in our published figures.

So his entire post is, as usual, complete rubbish.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Creative Midfielder

[littleyellowbirdie 2,582]

9 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Exactly so, and to return to the Chinese level of emisions which Jools/Hooks claims to be so concerned about - they are not genuinely the responsibility of just the Chinese. The only reason our figures 'appear' to be so low is that we, along with many other countries, have pretty much given up manufacturing anything and have sub-contracted/offloaded the manufacture of all our stuff, and the associated emissions, to China.

On top of that, there is a massive chunk of emissions incurred by transporting the stuff once made back to the UK, which should by rights be included in our emissions total but in fact are totally ignored and don't feature at all in our published figures.

So his entire post is, as usual, complete rubbish.

How can governments reasonably be  said to be responsible for pollution outside of the jurisdiction of their own governance? What would be the point of attributing it to them when they can't control it?

All transportation globally accounts for 15% of anthropogenic CO2 production. Global transportation of goods by sea accounts for 3% of anthropogenic CO2 production. There's also the trade off that reduced globalisation and more localised production means more factories needed with duplicate requirements making global manufacturing less efficient in energy terms. An example that springs to mind was the famous case of Harley Davidson starting to manufacture in Europe as a result of protectionism between the EU and the US. I strongly suspect that the carbon footprint of the extra factory well outstrips the saving of shipping Harley Davidsons from the US to Europe.

Edited August 9, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

14 hours ago, duke63 said:

Come back in 5 years and still tell me I am wrong and you are right  

Okay Mr Gullible, God willing, I will 👍

Edited August 9, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[duke63 545]

13 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How can governments reasonably be  said to be responsible for pollution outside of the jurisdiction of their own governance? What would be the point of attributing it to them when they can't control it?

All transportation globally accounts for 15% of anthropogenic CO2 production. Global transportation of goods by sea accounts for 3% of anthropogenic CO2 production. There's also the trade off that reduced globalisation and more localised production means more factories needed with duplicate requirements making global manufacturing less efficient in energy terms. An example that springs to mind was the famous case of Harley Davidson starting to manufacture in Europe as a result of protectionism between the EU and the US. I strongly suspect that the carbon footprint of the extra factory well outstrips the saving of shipping Harley Davidsons from the US to Europe.

If your country is importing goods it doesn’t really need from far away then of course you are responsible especially if you could be making them yourself. 
but it’s missing the point. We ALL have a responsibility for the future of the World and humanity. We can’t all just keep passing the buck and blame someone else. 
Consumerism will ultimately lead to our demise, I have no doubt about that. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,582]

29 minutes ago, duke63 said:

If your country is importing goods it doesn’t really need from far away then of course you are responsible especially if you could be making them yourself. 
but it’s missing the point. We ALL have a responsibility for the future of the World and humanity. We can’t all just keep passing the buck and blame someone else. 
Consumerism will ultimately lead to our demise, I have no doubt about that. 

Countries aren't consumers. I'm a consumer and you're a consumer.

Story on the brexit thread about a digital export certificate for fish pilot scheme falling through yesterday, but we don't 'need' to export the fish. All of that fish is great quality food, but most of it is stuff the French want to eat and Brits don't. What do you think should be done about that? Should the government force Brits to eat it, or just ban the fishing industry? The French don't 'need' Angostine fished in British waters, after all. Should fishing and exporting those Angostine be on the French carbon footprint then?

More generally, efforts to encourage people to buy domestically-made/produced products tend to get rubbished as jingoistic.

There's definitely no sudden rush from British consumers to take action on it by buying more fish...

What about iPhones? Just ban them as unnecessary, or insist Apple starts a new factory in every market place, complete with that factory's carbon footprint, but only if the raw materials for its manufacture happen to be available within the market place?

Edited August 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Worthy Nigelton 1,062]

Climate change deniers are now in the same camp as flat earthers to me. Total loons, thick as mince and no point debating them. 

I am genuinely worried about the future. I dread to think where we'll be in 10 years time. Economic collapse, an enormous migration problem, food rationing and probably fascism. I don't think any of those things are OTT and they are a seriously real threat. That's without the actual weather problems of horribly hot summers, flash floods and worse storms than we have ever seen before. The problem is that it now seems inevitable to me and there is next to no chance of fixing it.

[TheGunnShow 5,987]

The Earth will survive, but whether the conditions that enable us to flourish will remain so is a completely different story.

[duke63 545]

22 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Countries aren't consumers. I'm a consumer and you're a consumer.

Story on the brexit thread about a digital export certificate for fish pilot scheme falling through yesterday, but we don't 'need' to export the fish. All of that fish is great quality food, but most of it is stuff the French want to eat and Brits don't. What do you think should be done about that? Should the government force Brits to eat it, or just ban the fishing industry? The French don't 'need' Angostine fished in British waters, after all. Should fishing and exporting those Angostine be on the French carbon footprint then?

More generally, efforts to encourage people to buy domestically-made/produced products tend to get rubbished as jingoistic.

There's definitely no sudden rush from British consumers to take action on it by buying more fish...

What about iPhones? Just ban them as unnecessary, or insist Apple starts a new factory in every market place, complete with that factory's carbon footprint, but only if the raw materials for its manufacture happen to be available within the market place?

Travel to France and you will find that a big proportion of goods and foods sold are actually produced in France. 

We are in France now and EVERY item that is of French origin is marked with a label saying so. The supermarkets will even tell you where in France it comes from. The French will buy French cars before anything else. French strawberries will sell out before Spanish ones even though they are more expensive because they support their own industries. 
For all the **** we heard from Brexiteers I bet very few will choose British goods first if they are more expensive (not that we produce much of anything anymore). 
So to answer your point then yes it can be done if there is a will. No need to import IF you are prepared to invest in your own country. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,582]

21 minutes ago, duke63 said:

Travel to France and you will find that a big proportion of goods and foods sold are actually produced in France. 

We are in France now and EVERY item that is of French origin is marked with a label saying so. The supermarkets will even tell you where in France it comes from. The French will buy French cars before anything else. French strawberries will sell out before Spanish ones even though they are more expensive because they support their own industries. 
For all the **** we heard from Brexiteers I bet very few will choose British goods first if they are more expensive (not that we produce much of anything anymore). 
So to answer your point then yes it can be done if there is a will. No need to import IF you are prepared to invest in your own country. 

All very true. The French are very into supporting their domestic industries, while UK domestic production tends to be derided and dismissed in the UK. Probably no better example than the British ignoring domestic seafood that the French market covets.

We do produce very good seafood, most of which gets exported, and yet you've completely ignored every question I asked about fish exports from the UK to France. What should we do? The French consumers still want to buy them, even though they're not produced domestically, and in spite of those campaigns, France still has huge proportions of imported goods.

As an aside, French fish consumers are frustrated about how the EU has cut off their nose to spite their face by not being a bit more reasonable over fish imports from the UK, which is causing food waste. And yet those trade barriers are, ironically, completely in line with the idea that you shouldn't import or export stuff unless you really need it for the benefit of the environment. A benefit of Brexit, maybe? Maybe the tomato shortage was actually a good thing, seeing as there was a reduced carbon footprint from no tomatoes being shipped to the UK? And we don't need tomatoes after all; other food products are available.

You talk about Brexiteers not buying domestically produced stuff, but you were saying everybody needs to act. So what's everybody, remain voters and Brexit voters alike, doing to develop a taste for all the seafood that the French would like and reduce both carbon from shipping that out and also reduce the carbon produced from shipping in the food we eat in its place?

Edited August 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Both political parties are trumpeting each others policies, not one iota difference. Starmer hates tree huggers and wants to ban Greenpeace members from joining political parties, whilst Sunak sucks up to the gas and oil lobby, sending our energy prices up by supporting an unwinnable war in Ukraine.

another unreported story here is the plot against Imran Khan in Pakistan which might lead to civil war in Pakistan, the Bhutto's and Sharif's have no answer to the ongoing public support for Imran Khan, especially in areas were he did not have much support. If there is an election, the PTI, the party he led, would win again.

There are about 180.000 plus people of Pakistan origin living in this country and there was not a peep to be heard about this CIA/ISI instigated coup and the trumped up charges brought against him. Now if this would have happened in the US, with some 151.000 US originating people residing here, with the military ousting a political leader at home whilst in power, our media would scream from all its orifices and denounce the dreaded situation.

Luckily we do not need to be lead by the nose anymore and many informative sources are bypassing the begotten media and the two party one policy mongers in West-monster.

Here are a few links which call out this interference in Pakistan's destiny.

https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/08/imran-khan/

This issue of switching from Saudi Arabia to Russian supplies and Khan staunch refusal to support the tittering western coalition support for the Ukraine war, have brought the ISI to depose of him.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/pakistan-s-gamble-russian-oil