On Tue 19 Sep at 4:43pm SHS-2 wrote:
This should be the name for the Stop Oil protesters. Do they realise how many products are made from oil, how much manufacturing relies on gas and electricity, how much imports rely on a source of fuel to move goods from A to B? The bigger the cuts in oil production, the higher the prices we pay. If you have time and energy to protest, use it usefully to help find alternatives, because that is the only way things will change. Also, do your bit by turning of the heating, the lights, and riding a non-electric bicycle. (Yes, do thank me for news and stimulating conversation).
On Tue 19 Sep at 5:50pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Aren't they mainly protesting new oil and gas production and licensing? Surely weaning ourselves off fossil fuels that are a finite resource and dirty is ultimately the direction we need to be going.
So good for JSO. Plus I'm sure they are very aware of the grip that big oil has on society. Probably more aware than even you. We have alternatives already and countries like China, for all their faults, are investing billions into solar and other renewables. Time to extend the life of the planet and all its occupants. If that means buying less crap then so be it.
On Tue 19 Sep at 8:03pm Nevillman wrote:
It's really a question of long or short term cost. If you believe what we are told and discover ourselves from the data (which we assume to be true) that the long term effects of not cutting back on emissions will be even higher costs in the future then you have to decide whether you believe it's true or not really care what happens to future generations.
Deciding that we should really care at least a bit means that we have to accept that there will be a fall in living standards and hope that technology will find a solution and give us cheaper energy again.
Yes I do have a car and use it unnecessarily at times.
On Tue 19 Sep at 8:31pm Tom Pain wrote:
The UK's responsible for about 1% of worldwide emissions. China? 50%. Does the fiendish Yellow Peril have a plan to destroy the world? Or do they know that the man made climate change crisis is rubbish? Only Nayland Smith is a match for Fu Manchu, surely it's time he was called into action. Relax, he'll sort it out.
On Tue 19 Sep at 8:59pm Green Sleeves wrote:
China emits 27% of carbon emissions, TP, not 50%. And that is with a population of nearly 1.5bn, and is essentially the worlds manufacturing centre. Per capita, their emissions are less that of both the UK and the USA. This is not in defence of China, its to stop saying we shouldn't bother doing anything, as "China is far worse", when in reality, they aren't.....and they are actually bothering to invest in renewables in a way that puts western countries to shame.
On Wed 20 Sep at 11:05am Tom Pain wrote:
I stick with the 50% figure I've seen, maybe it included India as well. If you observe the satellite imagery on line, the pollution from that part of the world is extreme. I've been looking at a world temperatur e graph of the past half million years and it shows that the present high is no anomaly at all. About 160,000 years ago the earth's temperature rose rapidly to this level and slowly fell. 260,000 years ago it rose to two slightly lower peaks. 360,000 thousand - the same quick rise to present temperature and slow descent. The same repeating pattern. What's all the fuss about? I found my graph at researchgate.
On Wed 20 Sep at 12:54pm Green Sleeves wrote:
50% is a significant leap and looks wrong to me. I've seen various figures from 26 to 32%, so i think my first one seemed a lot more consistent and realistic. Given Chinas population, and significance to suppling the world with goods, those figures are somewhat expected. India though, with about the same population, is in 3rd place (behind the USA), but that is because they aren't the centre of manufacturing....yet.
I leave experts on this field to analyse data and patterns, not conspiracy theorists with no expertise in anything. While on occasion, its worth hearing a counter view out, when you actually bother to go in and sanity/fact-check it, the experts always tend to have the more compelling arguments and evidence.
On Wed 20 Sep at 5:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well the experts made the graph which shows that the present climate is just the repetition of a cycle and has occurred many times in the past when there was no mass fossil fuel burning industry. Can you not see that? How many fat chequers would it take to turn on a light bulb?
On Wed 20 Sep at 5:36pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Don't pretend to understand subjects more than experts. I don't know if you have any single area of expertise, but i would strongly recommend you stick to that with some sense of certainty and authority. The rest is just speculation and flawed analysis with a bias agenda deliberately trying to undermine the real science.
What we do know is that since humanity started rolling out fossil fuel production and rapidly expanded it to all corners of the world, we have seen deeply concerning patterns that have led climate scientists to conclude humanity has impacted its trajectory. Now its not to say that "global warming" and climate change cannot exist without humans, that would be nuts, and nobody is claiming that, but we have millions of experts ultimately on the same page, and these people don't appear to have a gun to their heads.
On Wed 20 Sep at 10:35pm Tom Pain wrote:
Exactly the same results have happened to the climate four times in the last half a million years with almost the same period of time between them- rapid warming to the same extent as now and a gradual decrease and you can't see a pattern? It's happened without us and now it's happening with us. How much hubris does it take to think we're the prime mover? Its preposterous, but then we are by nature of our being,
inescapably homo centric.
On Wed 20 Sep at 11:48pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Its not hubris, its being able to acknowledge reality and the impact of our species on the planet. Burning fossil fuels increases carbon dioxide, and the mass deforestations further affect the eco-balance by not being able to absorb the unnatural additional CO2. Experts with far more knowledge than either of us combined have been unable to explain such rapid warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution as anything other than it being from human activity.
If humanity, or just say Russia, or the United States, detonated its nuclear arsenal into the atmosphere, it would have an impact on our climate? I don't think that is "homo-centric", i think its just that our grasp of science and technology is at the stage where we can manipulate our environment for better and worse.
On Thu 21 Sep at 10:13am Tom Pain wrote:
Those vaunted experts somehow forgot that the industrial revolution coincided with the end of the Little Ice Age, as conveniently as you, I suppose? Ever heard of the gravy train?
On Thu 21 Sep at 11:17am Nevillman wrote:
The industrial revolution begins and the little ice age ends. Isn't that further evidence that the burning of fossil fuels warms up the planet then Tom?
My main issue with just stop oil and previously extinction rebellion is that both groups made protesting about climate change look like a middle class thing for people who like dressing up. They seriously affected many people going about their lives. They gave the government an excuse to stop people protesting. Rather than try to mobilise public opinion, they have alienated people concerned about climate change and made future protesting harder.
On Thu 21 Sep at 12:08pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Blame the Tories for clamping down on protests and making protests harder, not Just Stop Oil. Same party that made strikes and the withdrawing of ones labour harder as well. Blame those at fault rather than those pointing out the faults.
On Thu 21 Sep at 12:39pm Nevillman wrote:
I do blame the Tories as they were very pleased to have an excuse but the "right to protest" does imply protesting responsibly. Stopping other people from earning their living or going about their lives randomly and for unspecified periods was not responsible.
On Thu 21 Sep at 1:08pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Yikes, that is a pretty lousy take. Perhaps everyone should just protest in Parliament Square, peacefully, legally and with a nice banner so that a few passers-by and MPs can see it and shrug. Meanwhile, nobody else hears about it, and the world moves on.
Protests should be made to disrupt, and create havoc and get attention. Yes, the tories took advantage of that, and that is what authoritarian governments tend to do by enforcing draconian laws.....but you're not going to win by doing nothing at all or not raising any kind of relevancy or attention. They may be causing an inconvenience, but they aren't doing anything horrendous. The womens suffragette movement created far more damage and destruction, but nobody now focuses on that now, as rightfully the protests worked and women won key rights they may have missed out on had they done nothing. Its more important to be right, and on the right side of history, than on the side of the bystander shrieking at the inconvenience of protests instead of being angry at the people who make the decisions.
On Thu 21 Sep at 2:06pm Nevillman wrote:
The protesters had options. In my mind if would have been far more effective to have organised marches in every town all the same time. Ordinary people would have been mobilised rather than alienated and prevented from working, going to hospital appointments, funerals, outings etc.
What if it had been a group with other beliefs like anti immigration? They are equally certain of the right of their opinion and could equally say they had no alternative. You would rightly have objected to their method of protest.
On Thu 21 Sep at 2:39pm Green Sleeves wrote:
"options" - and those have been previously been explored and mostly failed to gain media traction.
I have no issue with any protests, and yea, there have been plenty of road closures and inconvenience caused by those protesting outside "migrant hotels". It received some media traction as a result, hence was somewhat of a success for them. Although that was more of an angry mob, than an organised protest such as with JSO and XR!
But sure, there is definitely a media narrative that apportions more blame on protesters (and strikers) than those in actual positions of power, influence and authority. Many clearly fall for it. Protests (disruptive and peaceful) are a healthy and essential part of democracy, its not Just Stop Oil who are clamping down on these things, but its very easy to fall into the trap of blaming them. Pretty sure Putin has been cracking down on protests for years by using similar tactics, its so obvious when you see it from the outside.
On Thu 21 Sep at 5:19pm Nevillman wrote:
You appear to be trying to blame the media for the commonly held view that it is irresponsible to protest by disrupting people's lives as jso and XR have done. To draw an analogy between my view on this and Putin is desperate.
Jso and XR have done the cause of dealing with climate change a disservice by alienating many people from the cause rather than trying to involve them.
I totally agree that protests are an essential part of democracy but this was irresponsible protesting. Organising millions of people on a march in every town would have been responsible and effective in raising awareness of the need for climate action.
Apportioning blame for the climate crisis is very hard. We are actually all to blame as we have all been raised as consumers in a capitalist society that needs consumers to give us all the increases in living standards we want and vote for. It can really only be collective action by all governments to ensure that we change. I'm afraid we haven't got a hope. I really hope that Tom is right and it is all a conspiracy theory and the world is going through a natural period of warming that will soon stop. Unfortunately I can't believe that all these scientists are in on the conspiracy.
I can't help thinking that I have lived through a golden period where we used all the resources that should have been kept for the future and caused a change in the climate that will seriously impair future generations.
Jso and XR may make it to a footnote in future history books that they tried to do something but I suspect our generation will be severely criticised and hated.
On Thu 21 Sep at 6:14pm Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL "Desperate"? If you wish to hold the naff take that JSO and XR went beyond the pale with their protests (exactly the same as what the mainstream right wing media peddle), then why don't you help organise those peaceful, undisruptive and totally effective marches throughout the UK towns and cities? It sounds like you are just defaulting to the media lines of criticising protests for daring to get headlines and achieve their objective that your soft-arse marches would have failed to garner.
You're squeamish about progressive activism, I get it - you are indeed a large part of society that has always been resistant to change (partly due to propaganda). But protests that made the difference in the past weren't always "by the book", and black people, women or the working class didn't win the vote by just carrying a placard in a town square and then going back to their comfortable lives without risk or consequence. I'd rather be on the right side of history, even if we lose (as we will all ultimately lose anyway if JSO et al fail).
On Thu 21 Sep at 6:36pm Nevillman wrote:
I'm not interested in the view of the right wing media and as I don't read or listen to it am certainly not influenced by it. There is no evidence to say that the cause of black people or women was advanced more by the illegal protesting than by the civil rights marches or the influence of the first world war. All jso and XR have achieved so far has been a curtailing of the right to protest and large numbers of very annoyed people.
I'm sorry I lack the ability to organise a national march but regret that whoever organised XR and jso went down their particular protest route rather than trying to marshal public opinion which in my opinion could well have been more effective. This would have carried a much greater weight with the government than the activities of a small minority of people who the government knows will never vote for them anyway.
I respect people who are involved in these protests but think they are misguided.
You may be right and I am just too old.
On Thu 21 Sep at 6:53pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Had JSO or XR taken your advice, we wouldn't be even discussing this right now, as it would have once again vanished into the ether. Its pretty obvious how the media works, and they just aren't interested in that level of civil obedience. The message goes nowhere and is heard by few.
Perhaps you SHOULD listen to the right-wing media, as you seem to have quite similar takes as many of them on certain topics such as this, so perhaps it will re-affirm your position and vacuous arguments on them. They seem to be quite relaxed about having Kier Starmer in charge as well - thats how progressive he is! Boomers i suppose love the status quo (not just the band).
On Thu 21 Sep at 7:48pm Nevillman wrote:
No. Had jso and XR organised it properly many more people would feel involved and the government would know that millions of voters cared.
I really don't get the difference between right and left so clearly these days but you can classify my views on anything how you want.
I'm sorry that the next government ( hopefully) won't be as " left" as you want but you won't get elected if you promise that.
We are not ready for a radical change. Let's just get these out.
On Thu 21 Sep at 8:27pm Tom Pain wrote:
All this labelling just causes friction, sleevie. Left, right, left, right, off to war. People are far more diverse (oops sorry for swearing) in their opinions than such simplistic definitions imply. I've thought that you probably would encourage violent action and you've just shown it....while you were safely out of range.
On Thu 21 Sep at 8:29pm Green Sleeves wrote:
XR and JSO you and I (and others) have actually heard of, and you know what they stand for. So job done. The others you have never heard of because your approach simply doesn't work. We would never be discussing climate emergency without them, so credit where credits due. Their attention has involved people, for better or worse....but the facts remain, and climate change is happening. Hating protesters is just what the establishment has long pushed, for centuries. Its nothing new, its just sad that old boomers still get duped by this kind of propaganda.
I won't be voting Labour unless they re-instate Jeremy Corbyn and stop attacking a significant part of the Labour party base. They would win with or without Corbyn, but alienating the left is a fundamentally bad strategy. They'll win power in the short term, but blunder it up because they have no progressive policies worthwhile, just committing to the same mistakes as the Conservative party. Its rinse and repeat, and as Stephen Fry said Labour "being the Tories without the clowning around" will only take you so far. You can't change the country by ultimately making the same mistakes. Then when the time comes after Labours short stint in power doing sod-all, the Tories will regain power and Labour will still be blaming Jeremy Corbyn for their failures. LOL its always the lefts fault somehow, despite being always further from power than even right-wing nutters.
Seems a shame that Britain is so cowardly when it comes to progressive change, but when it comes to the opposite and fear/regressive change like Brexit, we lap it up. We reap what we sow, and we probably deserve to be nuked and just start again with fresh ideas.
On Thu 21 Sep at 8:34pm Green Sleeves wrote:
"Violent action?" You talking about Just Stop Oil?? I thought they just glued themselves to stuff, or walked slowly down roads while being bumped out of the way by gammon thugs who look like Phil Mitchell. The violence is from those resisting the protests my dear.......the protests are disruptive, for sure, but they ARE peaceful.
However, clearly violent protests in the past have been adopted for progressive causes. Its not ideal of course, but again, people were desperate and having basic human rights denied to you can force people into desperate actions.
On Thu 21 Sep at 9:10pm Nevillman wrote:
Of course we would be discussing climate change without XR and jso. Not as many people would feel as alienated from it though. I think you are wrong to think that a mass protest wouldn't have achieved more but I accept you think differently. I honestly watch no news at all and read no papers apart from if I look a story up. I have not fallen for any propaganda. I'm sorry but not all boomers have fallen for the propaganda.
I will be voting lib Dems. I don't know anything about the labour party but sounds like a shame that it can't have Corbyn in it. We shall just have to see what happens with the next government. You are aggrieved that your wing of the labour party lost control having failed to win power. Get over it. There is no reason why a starmer government won't be able to achieve a lot of good things like closer to Europe and get re-elected. As for the still blaming Corbyn bit..... Really?
Okay the British electorate are stupid like voting for Brexit and Johnson but I think deserving to be nuked is a bit extreme.
On Thu 21 Sep at 10:08pm Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL Lib Dems.....ah yes, good old meaningless Lib Dems. Their only contribution was to put David Cameron in number 10 downing st all those years ago! Well done Clegg and co (which ultimately came to bite them in 2015 and nearly wiped them off the map!).
I'm not particularly aggrieved at Corbyn losing in 2017 or 19 - it was inevitable as he was non-establishment and couldn't be bought. I would have been shocked had he won in light of the ceaseless media attacks on him and the left. The electorate generally get it wrong (not entirely their fault, its just ignorance, media bias and lack of education), and it was no different in 2017 or 2019 when they bought into the weaponised anti-semitism, as well as brexit and boris snake oil salesman to further muddy the waters. When have the electorate actually got a satisfactory outcome? 1997? Hmmmm.....i think even John Major is more fondly remembered as a Prime Minister compared to Tony Blair at this point. Labour are just not the party they were originally formed to, and don't represent anywhere nearly as many people as they should. They just go where the corporate/media money is when that lot can't justify donating it to the tories anymore (until Labour invariably blow it and implode, as you can't stab as many people in the back as Starmer has, without there being a backlash).
On Fri 22 Sep at 8:31am Nevillman wrote:
Reluctantly I've come round to tactical voting so there is no alternative in Lewes. I believe the lib Dems favour proportional representation which I would prefer but accept we have no chance of getting.
You are still blaming the media for Corbyn losing elections rather than his own inadequacies and ability to convince the electorate.
You forget the many good things the labour government did from 1997. Heaven forbid that they should ever go back to being the party of the unions. Starmer seems a reasonable enough person to me so I am prepared to give him a chance. I accept that you don't like him and it's a shame that you still feel so much bitterness. Politics is a dirty business. He knew that Corbyn could never become prime minister and had only been put leader by extreme infiltrators to the party.
On Fri 22 Sep at 10:23am Green Sleeves wrote:
Lol oh yes heaven forbid they become the party of the unions/workers as originally intended, instead of the corporate shillers they become now whenever the tories have become electorally too toxic....safe New Labour step in with their centre right policies, and then blame the left when they inevitably lose down the line and the corporate donors and media companies flock back to the tories.
Corbyn, just like Bernie Sanders in the US, is just too good for this country. Perhaps we deserve poor leadership for centuries of cruel colonial rule.
On Fri 22 Sep at 3:46pm Nevillman wrote:
Circumstances were very different when the labour party was formed. It was still possible to believe that socialism was desirable and achievable. You may still believe that but it is a minority view and someone standing on a socialist platform would have no chance of getting elected. Most people now accept that we live in a capitalist society and the job of government is to regulate business and ensure that it is more fair than it would be if left unregulated.
I accept you don't green and from what I remember of Trotskyists from the 70s will have more antipathy for revisionists like starmer and me than the Tories. I say again, too bad. You achieved the labour leader of your dreams but he was a disaster and left us with this lot. It makes you happier to believe it was all due to the Tory press but again I disagree.
You have invented a future in which the labour party fail. That is up to you. Form your own party.
Previously you wished the UK electorate to be nuked. Now you only wish us poor leadership.
On Fri 22 Sep at 5:48pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Ahh my last post wasn't published, never mind, i'll re-summarise as i can't let you get away with so much ignorance on a public forum without being addressed and highlight where you are going wrong in your politics ) :
2017 demonstrated Britain had very much an appetite for democratic socialism. The Labour Party manifesto won over HALF the UK working age populations vote, and they went from nowhere in 2015 to bringing down Theresa Mays government and forcing a hung parliament, against all odds and with the backdrop of an aggressive media hatchet job on Corbyn and the left. The policies were similar to those in social democracies in Europe and beyond, and were clearly popular in the UK as well with workers.
Labour needs to go back to its roots and support trade unions properly instead of being bogged down in trying to be like the tories on this issue (As well as other issues of course). This is one of the surefire key differentiators, as the tories have always been relentlessly against Trade Unions and demonised them, because the party stand for and are funded by corporate donors who want to reduce trade union influence and regulations. People need to remember what Trade unions have done for them in terms of providing key employment rights that we enjoy today as a result of their efforts. You may take weekends and paid-holidays for granted, but these were hard won by workers and trade unions coming together over decades, and they still remain relevant today. Even though the attacks on TU's continue, they have support today and people are seeing through the anti-trade union BS, as progressive voices like Mick Lynch are totally obliterating the tired old arguments against industrial action and strikes that the media and governments still try to spin.
Finally, in response to "You have invented a future in which the labour party fail. That is up to you. Form your own party." - Labour Party will always fail if they only go into government as an interim tory government committed to broadly the same tax and spending policies, as eventually the corporate/media will go back to supporting the tories once their toxic brand is forgotten, and all the same mistakes are being made by Labour instead. Rinse and repeat. This is the issue with the two-party system. Hobsons choice almost every time.
On Fri 22 Sep at 7:53pm Nevillman wrote:
In 2017 Britain demonstrated that despite being up against a widely accepted totally useless prime minister, Corbyn still couldn't win. He only achieved Johnson.
Trade unions are one of the bodies that a government must deal with. Each union supports the members of the particular group of workers that pays for it. Overall the trade unions have had and should have influence for increasing overall working conditions but the government should be doing that anyway. The majority of people are not in unions. We can remember what the trade unions have done for us without them deciding what should happen.
I agree with the end of your last paragraph. I'm not sure the first past the post system is capable of representing enough views. Got to seriously think about proportional representation.
On Fri 22 Sep at 8:31pm Green Sleeves wrote:
And yet Theresa May holds a lot more credibility than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or David Cameron at this point in history!! Johnson was inevitable, he's hardly the fault of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'm sure the guy is used to taking the blame for everything!
As for trade unions, apparently almost a quarter of the permanent UK workforce are part of a trade union, and lucky them. Those who don't have trade union membership or support won't be afforded the same protections or assistance when their employer takes a perfectly reasonable decision to cut back on business costs to ensure profits are maintained. Trade unions were made out as the bogeymen of the 70s and 80s by the governments and scum media, and to a lesser extent ever since, but lets see how "smashing the unions" as the tories/Thatcher triumphantly claimed, has worked out in our capitalist society....answer, not very well. CEOs its worked out very well, as they and shareholders have got richer, and they earn many more times on average more than their workers than ever before. Shunning trade unions is such a dumb counter-productive move, and sadly many people haven't got the memo and still pandering to the elites, out of some sort of deference to their genius of building a business off the back of others.
On Sat 23 Sep at 8:12am Nevillman wrote:
For my whole working life I was in trade unions for the reasons you suggest. That doesn't mean I think they should have a say in running the country.
I couldn't agree more about the increased rewards and pay for CEOs and shareholders. I didn't vote for the government that has allowed it to happen or at least tax the wealthy sufficiently. I blame the voters and labour party who were unable to get sufficiently organised behind a leader acceptable to the voters to prevent it. You no doubt blame the daily mail for that. Their readership is considerably less than the number of trade union members.
On Sat 23 Sep at 8:57am Green Sleeves wrote:
I think you should hate the game not fhe players. The system is rigged hence why we ultimately end up with the same governance and type leadership every time.
You joke about the daily mail, but let us not forget the influence Rupert Murdoch has had on UK and western politics (i know the DM isnt one of his but you get the point). He has basically been behind every government the UK has had since the 70s. The print media, have had a shocking amount of influence on the way this country is governed, and yeah you are right, most people don't even read newspapers anymore....and yet they still control the narrative. Does that not concern you? A small minority so powerful. Murdoch at 108 years old or however ancient he is, is only stepping down from his role to avoid the legal issues his company are facing due to their corruption. So yeah, the media are far more influential and damaging than trade unions, even though trade unions are representing far more people.
On Sat 23 Sep at 5:25pm Nevillman wrote:
That could be Tom. "They're all the same. It makes no difference". Disagree green. We have a spectacularly bad government and while I am sure you will be disappointed by starmer, most people don't want your politics. From your extreme perspective starmer may look like sunak but I am hoping he won't from mine.
You can continue to bitterly blame the media for not enough people seeing things from your perspective. It has never been easier to put different viewpoints over or access others views.