Eco- Warriers. Are They All Hypocrites?
Discussion
markcoznottz said:
Unknown_User said:
StevieBee said:
You're not wrong. Her ire is directly squared to governments and industry who have the power to implement change but either ignore the need or choose not to.
She wrangles a great many because to (mainly middle age, middle class blokes) it's difficult to concede that a slightly odd teenage girl is right about most of the the things she says.
About sums it up it I believe.She wrangles a great many because to (mainly middle age, middle class blokes) it's difficult to concede that a slightly odd teenage girl is right about most of the the things she says.
Many thousands of people have done those things. Good for them but what did their efforts achieve compared to flying a bunch of politicians to one place where they thrash out actual policies?
StevieBee said:
You're not wrong. Her ire is directly squared to governments and industry who have the power to implement change but either ignore the need or choose not to.
True.I'm just guessing that it was about 2010 that we became acutely aware that plastics were destroying the worlds oceans. The obvious answer would be to reduce the production of plastics, yet:
https://www.darrinqualman.com/global-plastics-prod...
fido said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Why is it a left wing thing? 
Because a left-wing political orientation tends to embrace pro-environmental issues versus individualism. In the same way that someone who advocates lower taxation or immigration control tends to be associated with right-wing politics. I suppose left-of-centre or right-of-centre might sound better - caring for the environment or wanting stricter controls on immigration doesn't neccesarily make you an extreme left or right!Under John Major they were the primary architects of the EU landfill directive which transformed how waste is managed and why you recycle today.
The Sustainable Development Goals which represent the most progressive thinking set of global social and environmental plans of actions, indicators and policy, came directly from the desk of Cameron. They are very much a right of centre invention.
The Johnson government is the first in the world to legally bind the nation to a target of net-zero emissions and is ploughing huge sums into green-tech.
Many of these were objected to by Labour who also failed to implement sustainable focused policies when they had the chance to.
The perception of environmentalism is of a left-wing leaning entity. But the reality of the practicals that will deliver environmental sustainability is very much a right-leaning thing.
StevieBee said:
fido said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Why is it a left wing thing?
Because a left-wing political orientation tends to embrace pro-environmental issues versus individualism. In the same way that someone who advocates lower taxation or immigration control tends to be associated with right-wing politics. I suppose left-of-centre or right-of-centre might sound better - caring for the environment or wanting stricter controls on immigration doesn't neccesarily make you an extreme left or right!Under John Major they were the primary architects of the EU landfill directive which transformed how waste is managed and why you recycle today.
The Sustainable Development Goals which represent the most progressive thinking set of global social and environmental plans of actions, indicators and policy, came directly from the desk of Cameron. They are very much a right of centre invention.
The Johnson government is the first in the world to legally bind the nation to a target of net-zero emissions and is ploughing huge sums into green-tech.
Many of these were objected to by Labour who also failed to implement sustainable focused policies when they had the chance to.
The perception of environmentalism is of a left-wing leaning entity. But the reality of the practicals that will deliver environmental sustainability is very much a right-leaning thing.
This is backed up by misrepresentations of statements about capitalism etc
There’s also the narrative that it’s all part of the great reset which is possibly being driven by liberals and the left also.
Both of these are supported by the mainstream media who are also apparently lefties.
markcoznottz said:
The ‘middle age middle class’ is who the left wing hate the most. Bizzare statement. Doesn’t anyone else use energy?
I'm surprised it's seen as a left/right thing.As others have said look at what the Government are doing around building back better in a greener more sustainable and feminine way or whatever it is.
Not sure they're left wing are they?
El stovey said:
True but don’t forget the recent conspiracy theory narrative that environmentalism and particularly anthropogenic global warming is part of some kind of Marxist plot to redistribute wealth.
This is backed up by misrepresentations of statements about capitalism etc
There’s also the narrative that it’s all part of the great reset which is possibly being driven by liberals and the left also.
Both of these are supported by the mainstream media who are also apparently lefties.
To be fair, there is a pretty strong thread of “smash capitalism” running through XR and the like. This is backed up by misrepresentations of statements about capitalism etc
There’s also the narrative that it’s all part of the great reset which is possibly being driven by liberals and the left also.
Both of these are supported by the mainstream media who are also apparently lefties.
This whole discussion about governments, corporations and individuals is missing the point - they’re all the same thing. There is no point in berating Shell for extracting oil when they are simply fulfilling demand from their customers (individuals).
Getting government to do something to influence consumer behaviour is frequently ineffective and generally ruinously expensive. Let’s take the great lighting disaster of 20 years ago. Governments spent millions (probably billions) subsidising god awful alternatives to incandescent lights - we used to get sent them by the power company as part of some carbon scheme. They were s
t, and a lot ended up in landfill - I know ours did. What does capitalism do? It commercialises a product (LED) that is inherently better than then thing it is replacing. People willingly spent money on things that were better for the environment because they were also a better product. No subsidy required. The fact that halogen incandescents are being withdrawn can be met with a bit of a shrug - there are far better alternatives. EVs are the same. If they were a better product, they wouldn’t need subsidy. But the government is essentially making them “free” to company car users, who are taking the bait. Vast amounts of taxpayers money is being thrown at infrastructure, and industry is being bashed with hard deadlines to roll out a substandard product. Even with all the subsidy on one side, and tax on the other, people are still making the “wrong” choice.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I can absolutely see that side of it but over the course of his life and work do you honestly think he's a hypocrite because of a few trips?
Yes. He is doing that to earn coin for himself while lecturing others about the damage of long haul flights.He is the textbook definition of a hypocrite and having a platform to spout off on does not make immune to those accusations.
NMNeil said:
True.
I'm just guessing that it was about 2010 that we became acutely aware that plastics were destroying the worlds oceans. The obvious answer would be to reduce the production of plastics, yet:
https://www.darrinqualman.com/global-plastics-prod...
Actually in the west we have made much progress.I'm just guessing that it was about 2010 that we became acutely aware that plastics were destroying the worlds oceans. The obvious answer would be to reduce the production of plastics, yet:
https://www.darrinqualman.com/global-plastics-prod...
" It is estimated that 81% of ocean plastics come from Asian rivers"
https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
rxe said:
This whole discussion about governments, corporations and individuals is missing the point - they’re all the same thing. There is no point in berating Shell for extracting oil when they are simply fulfilling demand from their customers (individuals).
I think that it's human nature for individuals to nearly always make selfish and short-sighted choices. Leaving environmental improvement to individuals will never work. Randy Winkman said:
survivalist said:
PeteinSQ said:
survivalist said:
The usual excuse for this nonsense is 'Awareness'. As if anyone isn't aware.
If people want to be seen as "Eco-Warriors" then they need to lead by example, as they are the ones who are advocating for change. I've got no issue with people public documenting how they have changed their lifestyle to minimise their impact on the environment.
Also have no issue with companies who are putting measures in place to become more sustainable.
The latter seem to be admitting that they are taking measures to minimise (not eliminate) their impact.
The former want others to make sacrifices that they aren't willing to make. They frequently use the 'awareness' they are generating to justify their actions. However, using Emma Thompson as an example, I'm pretty sure that the news networks of the world would have been perfectly happy to hear her opinion from a TV studio in LA or a Video Link from her home. Nonsense like that is pure virtue signalling and more likely to persuade people to rile against this kind of nonsense.
Personally, I'm planning a road trip to Italy because there is an awesome sustainable farm that does a mean steak. I'm saving the world because said steak has a marginally lower carbon footprint than the one in London that i can travel to by train. More than justifies the 2600 mile road trip.
Plenty of people are aware but are doing absolutely fIf people want to be seen as "Eco-Warriors" then they need to lead by example, as they are the ones who are advocating for change. I've got no issue with people public documenting how they have changed their lifestyle to minimise their impact on the environment.
Also have no issue with companies who are putting measures in place to become more sustainable.
The latter seem to be admitting that they are taking measures to minimise (not eliminate) their impact.
The former want others to make sacrifices that they aren't willing to make. They frequently use the 'awareness' they are generating to justify their actions. However, using Emma Thompson as an example, I'm pretty sure that the news networks of the world would have been perfectly happy to hear her opinion from a TV studio in LA or a Video Link from her home. Nonsense like that is pure virtue signalling and more likely to persuade people to rile against this kind of nonsense.
Personally, I'm planning a road trip to Italy because there is an awesome sustainable farm that does a mean steak. I'm saving the world because said steak has a marginally lower carbon footprint than the one in London that i can travel to by train. More than justifies the 2600 mile road trip.
k all to change their behaviour. I work with loads of people that I'm sure many on here would agree with that just say "look at China" when they book their third long haul flight of the year. The seriousness of the situation is completely lost on some people. Either that or they just couldn't give a s
t about the world that their grandkids will live in. My parents are like the latter, they say things like "I'll be long dead so what do I care". Which I find a bizarre view from people with two grandsons but there you go, so long as they can take their multiple overseas holidays that's all they care about.
Placing blame on "ordinary" people
The "us and them" element - it's how the majority perceive it
The belief that that activists/celebrities calling out corporations makes any difference. Everyone knows that Coke/McDonalds/KFC is bad for you - and yet they thrive.
The reality is that the rich want the poor to cut back to save the planet. The poor don't want to (and sometimes can't). The corporations that are getting rich from it all (and often pay the rich celebs to promote their products) will claim they are changing, while changing at the slowest possible acceptable pace (e.g. very slow) and lobbying government to prevent change.
It's all just a giant game. A global version of convincing someone you're really into their personality. At 2am. In a nightclub. Turns out you really just want to sleep with them and do a runner in he morning,
She is rather preachy though. Also, a reasonable amount of the shouty rhetoric is aimed at getting governments to restrict what ordinary people can do.
A more useful approach might be to build consensus and encourage smaller positive changes. The problem with fame, a bit like power, is that it seems to corrupt.
rxe said:
El stovey said:
True but don’t forget the recent conspiracy theory narrative that environmentalism and particularly anthropogenic global warming is part of some kind of Marxist plot to redistribute wealth.
This is backed up by misrepresentations of statements about capitalism etc
There’s also the narrative that it’s all part of the great reset which is possibly being driven by liberals and the left also.
Both of these are supported by the mainstream media who are also apparently lefties.
To be fair, there is a pretty strong thread of “smash capitalism” running through XR and the like. This is backed up by misrepresentations of statements about capitalism etc
There’s also the narrative that it’s all part of the great reset which is possibly being driven by liberals and the left also.
Both of these are supported by the mainstream media who are also apparently lefties.
This whole discussion about governments, corporations and individuals is missing the point - they’re all the same thing. There is no point in berating Shell for extracting oil when they are simply fulfilling demand from their customers (individuals).
Getting government to do something to influence consumer behaviour is frequently ineffective and generally ruinously expensive. Let’s take the great lighting disaster of 20 years ago. Governments spent millions (probably billions) subsidising god awful alternatives to incandescent lights - we used to get sent them by the power company as part of some carbon scheme. They were s
t, and a lot ended up in landfill - I know ours did. What does capitalism do? It commercialises a product (LED) that is inherently better than then thing it is replacing. People willingly spent money on things that were better for the environment because they were also a better product. No subsidy required. The fact that halogen incandescents are being withdrawn can be met with a bit of a shrug - there are far better alternatives. EVs are the same. If they were a better product, they wouldn’t need subsidy. But the government is essentially making them “free” to company car users, who are taking the bait. Vast amounts of taxpayers money is being thrown at infrastructure, and industry is being bashed with hard deadlines to roll out a substandard product. Even with all the subsidy on one side, and tax on the other, people are still making the “wrong” choice.
EV is an odd one. Now almost everyone is focussed on a monthly cost (rather than a purchase cost) for cars it just comes down to the deals that manufactures offer. Most people don't factor in running costs. If they did, EVs would likely be more popular.
Only works for the more affluent though. Theres no £2k option if you want an EV, unless its f
ked that is 
I considered getting a Tesla Model 3, but having driven one I couldn't see the appeal (beyond cost). A friend of mine in a similar position ordered one last week. The main difference between us is that I like cars and he's indifferent. Given that 99% of people are indifferent I can't work out if it's cheap lease deals that keep them in a ICE car or just habit.
survivalist said:
EV is an odd one. Now almost everyone is focussed on a monthly cost (rather than a purchase cost) for cars it just comes down to the deals that manufactures offer. Most people don't factor in running costs. If they did, EVs would likely be more popular.
Only works for the more affluent though. Theres no £2k option if you want an EV, unless its fked that is
And once they have got rid of ICE cars. Next step will be to reduce EV use.Only works for the more affluent though. Theres no £2k option if you want an EV, unless its f
ked that is "Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: "Public transport and active travel will be the natural first choice for our daily activities.
"We will use our cars less and be able to rely on a convenient, cost-effective and coherent public transport network.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-520...
vikingaero said:
On the whole yes. They consume resources like the rest of us, use the internet and phones to plan their next jape. For instance if you look at the names and addresses of the XD mob that were arrested and charged in Dover, none of them could have got to Dover using public transport, and will have driven there. Much like Politicians and Councillors - Do as we say, and not as we do. They justify the use of resources on the loose premise of their protests.
Remember Emma Thompson, actress and XD gobste, who flew into London to protest with the Oxford Circus boat debacle. Yup, so green, but excused as she jets around the world.
The rich buy carbon offset tokens so she actually is carbon neutral Remember Emma Thompson, actress and XD gobs
te, who flew into London to protest with the Oxford Circus boat debacle. Yup, so green, but excused as she jets around the world.irc said:
survivalist said:
EV is an odd one. Now almost everyone is focussed on a monthly cost (rather than a purchase cost) for cars it just comes down to the deals that manufactures offer. Most people don't factor in running costs. If they did, EVs would likely be more popular.
Only works for the more affluent though. Theres no £2k option if you want an EV, unless its fked that is
And once they have got rid of ICE cars. Next step will be to reduce EV use.Only works for the more affluent though. Theres no £2k option if you want an EV, unless its f
ked that is "Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: "Public transport and active travel will be the natural first choice for our daily activities.
"We will use our cars less and be able to rely on a convenient, cost-effective and coherent public transport network.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-520...
t. I live a bit less than 30 mins by train to Kings Cross. Pre-Pandemic that journey would be well over an hour by car and £30 parking plus whatever the congestion charge bulls
t is. If I go to out office in Nottinghamshire then it involves 3 train journeys and at least one taxi. Each way.
That said, the ability to rent EVs for short periods might help. The issue will be that most people want to rent them at the same time.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff