Climate protesters block roads
Discussion
sambucket said:
I don't think Emma flying is hypocritical really. She is campaigning for changes in the law. Individual decision is never going to matter. It's a government level issue.
Edited by sambucket on Monday 22 April 13:14
The really interesting bit is whether some reporter can dig up the details of her journey. Aside from travelling business class (CO2 per seat in economy is lower and gets there at just the same time), did she slum it on public transport at each end, or did she get a limo? I suspect the latter.
rxe said:
It’s almost the definition of hypocrisy. I do love her justification though which was “I wish I could fly with less pollution” - don’t we all, dear. Until someone invents something better than a couple of Trents hung off a aluminium can, then her platitudes are about as meaningful as praying for pixie dust to power aeroplanes.
The really interesting bit is whether some reporter can dig up the details of her journey. Aside from travelling business class (CO2 per seat in economy is lower and gets there at just the same time), did she slum it on public transport at each end, or did she get a limo? I suspect the latter.
I disagree. Tax rules the world. The really interesting bit is whether some reporter can dig up the details of her journey. Aside from travelling business class (CO2 per seat in economy is lower and gets there at just the same time), did she slum it on public transport at each end, or did she get a limo? I suspect the latter.
I feel strongly that cigarettes should be restricted via high taxation, but still smoke the odd cig now and again. I would vote for increasing tax on fags, but that does that make me a hypocrite? My political beliefs and personal actions are separate.
Likewise, if I felt strongly that cutting flight was the key to climate change (I don't believe this at all) I would support increasing tax on flights, but would probably fly occasionally.
rxe said:
It’s almost the definition of hypocrisy. I do love her justification though which was “I wish I could fly with less pollution” - don’t we all, dear. Until someone invents something better than a couple of Trents hung off a aluminium can, then her platitudes are about as meaningful as praying for pixie dust to power aeroplanes.
The really interesting bit is whether some reporter can dig up the details of her journey. Aside from travelling business class (CO2 per seat in economy is lower and gets there at just the same time), did she slum it on public transport at each end, or did she get a limo? I suspect the latter.
It's a fair point sambucket, what I would say is that if we were to make much more effort in curbing hydrocarbon use (sensible idea in general) our standard of living would fall. She isn't willing to accept that as she continues to use something she knows is bad as there is no alternative - our problem in microcosm. Of course, things may have been a bit easier if we'd carried on with our nuclear programs and hadn't been so reliant on fossil fuels for electricity, what caused that glitch I wonder...?The really interesting bit is whether some reporter can dig up the details of her journey. Aside from travelling business class (CO2 per seat in economy is lower and gets there at just the same time), did she slum it on public transport at each end, or did she get a limo? I suspect the latter.
If I recall correctly, isn't the UK doing quite well and doesn't the UK, globally, have an almost negligible effect on CO2 production? 40-odd percent less CO2 than 20 years ago while contributing less than 1% globally to emissions are the figures I have in my head.
They'd be better off #learntonuclearengineer or protesting outside the Chinese embassy really rather than causing disruption on such a scale with no real idea what anyone can do, or indeed, has already done about it.
andy_s said:
They'd be better off #learntonuclearengineer or protesting outside the Chinese embassy really rather than causing disruption on such a scale with no real idea what anyone can do, or indeed, has already done about it.
Imagine I am an anti nuclear power protester. I should only be allowed to legitimately campaign in the country with the most nuclear power stations?We have most influence in the place we live. Just because worst exists elsewhere, it doesn't follow that we should forfeit the right to change local politics.
sambucket said:
andy_s said:
They'd be better off #learntonuclearengineer or protesting outside the Chinese embassy really rather than causing disruption on such a scale with no real idea what anyone can do, or indeed, has already done about it.
Imagine I am a pro choice campaigner living in England, upset about the maximum term rules. I should only be allowed to legitimately campaign in Ireland where the law is much stricter than England?We have most influence in the place we live. Just because worst exists elsewhere, it doesn't follow that we should forfeit the right to change local politics.
My argument was that we are generally changing locally anyway and the disruption is largely unnecessary or misplaced.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Whether you agree with them or not, I think it's pretty simple tbh.
Protest outside the Chinese embassy or some remote Nuclear Power Plant and you'll get very little coverage.
Shut down part of Central London you'll get plenty of coverage.
You go where the people are.
Not really, they are doing it by taking the piss out of our light touch policing. We police by consent, but that does come with certain caveats. If everybody did what they are doing the country would grind to a halt. Just because THEY think it's the big issue doesn't mean everyone else does. Piling bodies into an area en masse is mob rule imho, not a protest. Witness the difference in how the 2011 riots were policed. In other countries riot police, then water cannon, and eventually bullets would be used. No one can game the system. Protest outside the Chinese embassy or some remote Nuclear Power Plant and you'll get very little coverage.
Shut down part of Central London you'll get plenty of coverage.
You go where the people are.
Has this ever happened before? I mean apart from an out and out riot has anyone occupied London before? Surely the police had a heads up to stop people at key points?
I think they would have better luck, in this day and age, if they campaigned for a referendum.
Should the United Kingdom be carbon-free by 2025? yes or no.
A yes result would tie up parliament for years trying to decipher what the question even means.
I can't even begin to imagine how chaotic that would be .
Should the United Kingdom be carbon-free by 2025? yes or no.
A yes result would tie up parliament for years trying to decipher what the question even means.
I can't even begin to imagine how chaotic that would be .
sambucket said:
I disagree. Tax rules the world.
I feel strongly that cigarettes should be restricted via high taxation, but still smoke the odd cig now and again. I would vote for increasing tax on fags, but that does that make me a hypocrite? My political beliefs and personal actions are separate.
Likewise, if I felt strongly that cutting flight was the key to climate change (I don't believe this at all) I would support increasing tax on flights, but would probably fly occasionally.
Saying that cigarettes are bad, while smoking is hypocritical. It’s also daft, but we may have to factor in the question of chemical dependency on the cigarettes.I feel strongly that cigarettes should be restricted via high taxation, but still smoke the odd cig now and again. I would vote for increasing tax on fags, but that does that make me a hypocrite? My political beliefs and personal actions are separate.
Likewise, if I felt strongly that cutting flight was the key to climate change (I don't believe this at all) I would support increasing tax on flights, but would probably fly occasionally.
Flying biz across the Atlantic and then saying flying is bad is just stupidity. Her position is either;
- Tax flying so that the poor can’t do it anymore, it won’t affect me, because I’ll just pay the tax.
Or
- Flying is just bad and I’m too thick to realise that I’ve just been on an aeroplane
Either way, hypocritical. Her career is no more important than the reasons that millions of other people get on planes. But it’s OK, because she’s planted loads of trees at her second home in Scotland. You couldn’t bring to make it up.....
rxe said:
Saying that cigarettes are bad, while smoking is hypocritical. It’s also daft, but we may have to factor in the question of chemical dependency on the cigarettes.
Flying biz across the Atlantic and then saying flying is bad is just stupidity. Her position is either;
- Tax flying so that the poor can’t do it anymore, it won’t affect me, because I’ll just pay the tax.
Or
- Flying is just bad and I’m too thick to realise that I’ve just been on an aeroplane
Either way, hypocritical. Her career is no more important than the reasons that millions of other people get on planes. But it’s OK, because she’s planted loads of trees at her second home in Scotland. You couldn’t bring to make it up.....
Is it possible to support occasional use whilst opposing frequent use? Without being a hypocrite?Flying biz across the Atlantic and then saying flying is bad is just stupidity. Her position is either;
- Tax flying so that the poor can’t do it anymore, it won’t affect me, because I’ll just pay the tax.
Or
- Flying is just bad and I’m too thick to realise that I’ve just been on an aeroplane
Either way, hypocritical. Her career is no more important than the reasons that millions of other people get on planes. But it’s OK, because she’s planted loads of trees at her second home in Scotland. You couldn’t bring to make it up.....
The taxing the poor argument is valid, but doesn't stop us using tax for restricting alcohol and cigarette use.
Like brexit, either decision is bound to annoy a significant chunk of the population. But doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.
colonel c said:
TeamD said:
colonel c said:
3.1416 said:
RobDickinson said:
The earths rotation has slowed because of the moon. Wind is created by the sun heating the planet.
Technically, it's the tides generated by the moon which slow the earth's rotation.https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html
Carry on.
sambucket said:
rxe said:
Saying that cigarettes are bad, while smoking is hypocritical. It’s also daft, but we may have to factor in the question of chemical dependency on the cigarettes.
Flying biz across the Atlantic and then saying flying is bad is just stupidity. Her position is either;
- Tax flying so that the poor can’t do it anymore, it won’t affect me, because I’ll just pay the tax.
Or
- Flying is just bad and I’m too thick to realise that I’ve just been on an aeroplane
Either way, hypocritical. Her career is no more important than the reasons that millions of other people get on planes. But it’s OK, because she’s planted loads of trees at her second home in Scotland. You couldn’t bring to make it up.....
Is it possible to support occasional use whilst opposing frequent use? Without being a hypocrite?Flying biz across the Atlantic and then saying flying is bad is just stupidity. Her position is either;
- Tax flying so that the poor can’t do it anymore, it won’t affect me, because I’ll just pay the tax.
Or
- Flying is just bad and I’m too thick to realise that I’ve just been on an aeroplane
Either way, hypocritical. Her career is no more important than the reasons that millions of other people get on planes. But it’s OK, because she’s planted loads of trees at her second home in Scotland. You couldn’t bring to make it up.....
The taxing the poor argument is valid, but doesn't stop us using tax for restricting alcohol and cigarette use.
Like brexit, either decision is bound to annoy a significant chunk of the population. But doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.
I think if the climate lovies start attacking ordinary people going on holiday they’ll get poleaxed. Same reason, in my view they decided against an Easter raid at Heathrow.
As China, Russia and the US are the big 3, why not f
k off to Moscow and have a march 
rxe said:
sambucket said:
I disagree. Tax rules the world.
I feel strongly that cigarettes should be restricted via high taxation, but still smoke the odd cig now and again. I would vote for increasing tax on fags, but that does that make me a hypocrite? My political beliefs and personal actions are separate.
Likewise, if I felt strongly that cutting flight was the key to climate change (I don't believe this at all) I would support increasing tax on flights, but would probably fly occasionally.
Saying that cigarettes are bad, while smoking is hypocritical. It’s also daft, but we may have to factor in the question of chemical dependency on the cigarettes.I feel strongly that cigarettes should be restricted via high taxation, but still smoke the odd cig now and again. I would vote for increasing tax on fags, but that does that make me a hypocrite? My political beliefs and personal actions are separate.
Likewise, if I felt strongly that cutting flight was the key to climate change (I don't believe this at all) I would support increasing tax on flights, but would probably fly occasionally.
Flying biz across the Atlantic and then saying flying is bad is just stupidity. Her position is either;
- Tax flying so that the poor can’t do it anymore, it won’t affect me, because I’ll just pay the tax.
Or
- Flying is just bad and I’m too thick to realise that I’ve just been on an aeroplane
Either way, hypocritical. Her career is no more important than the reasons that millions of other people get on planes. But it’s OK, because she’s planted loads of trees at her second home in Scotland. You couldn’t bring to make it up.....
sambucket said:
Strangely binary thinking here.
Or is everything black and white?
maybe one of the benefits of age is you do realise everything is far from black and white. Pretending everything is a simple choice is dangerous and we now have so many people in positions of influence who act like cretins its quite scary.Or is everything black and white?
Nothing is binary.
Its relatively easy to change your lifestyle to drastically drop your impact - which will never be zero but can be sustainable.
Switch to an EV, buy power from a 100% renewable source (use low power home things) , cut down meat/dairy, stop using single use things and recycle, fly less frequently etc etc.
But in addition to that we need legislation and enforcement/tax to push industry and all those flat eathers who wont change, because basically fk you and the planet.
Thats why it really doesnt matter it princess got dropped off at the protests in a diesel suv, that wasnt their choice and its about removing that option so next time it'll be something better.
its about the impact this will have on your childrens life when the power is with crusty old farts who wont see the biggest impacts.
Its relatively easy to change your lifestyle to drastically drop your impact - which will never be zero but can be sustainable.
Switch to an EV, buy power from a 100% renewable source (use low power home things) , cut down meat/dairy, stop using single use things and recycle, fly less frequently etc etc.
But in addition to that we need legislation and enforcement/tax to push industry and all those flat eathers who wont change, because basically f
k you and the planet. Thats why it really doesnt matter it princess got dropped off at the protests in a diesel suv, that wasnt their choice and its about removing that option so next time it'll be something better.
its about the impact this will have on your childrens life when the power is with crusty old farts who wont see the biggest impacts.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff