leicsmac

I think I've said this before, but I really have no idea why Modi gets such a free pass in the popular press and society, given how much of a dick he is.

The Chinese are providing an object lesson in the application of soft power recently. I think it's more than acceptable to hold the viewpoint that the Chinese human rights record is extremely questionable, while at the same time acknowledging that quite a few of the societal and scientific developments they're applying are not only desirable, they may be necessary for our species.

Fair enough, then I cannot understand the advocacy for a path forward that will make that problem far worse than the theoratical idea of having no gas at all immediately (which is equally daft). I guess the argument is that there is no other choice, which is true at the present time and is why the change has to be phased - but not over several decades, we simply don't have that kind of time. The quicker it is moved away from (or even some miracle tech that nullifies the emissions it produces), the more damage is mitigated.

And at the same time pretend that the incidents of crop pressure in the UK and elsewhere due to increased drought and flooding aren't happening and won't get worse, clearly.

Clearly Mr. Szczerek requires an object lesson in what the kind of social Darwinism he likes would really mean for him if someone was coming for him with something on their mind. Perhaps a member of the public may end up providing that lesson to him.

It's remarkable that this keeps needing to be said given the consequences of using fossil fuels for energy generation already showing and how detailed the consequences to come are.

A corollary of the above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yl5v4elgno A summer of soaring temperatures has come to an end with more Britons turning to air conditioning to cope with the heat - but should you buy one too? The benefits of air-con are well documented. Studies show that hot days make working and studying less efficient and a good night's sleep more difficult to achieve. However, it uses extra electricity - the price of which remains much higher now than it was a few years ago - and environmental groups are concerned about the chemicals used to cool air. Some consumers also worry air-con devices spread viruses - but that hasn't stopped sales rising.

It won't. Some people think that it will conserve short-term wealth and power for themselves and their mates, but it won't do that either. Others simply don't care because they think they can be inured from the worst of the effects until they pass on and don't are about their legacies as one of those who killed the world.

And then the question becomes where the border is between the former and the latter.

They don't have it either tbh, apart from the principle of no government-sanctioned consequences for speech, which the current government over there is doing its best to violate in practice anyway. On topic, of course the refs need to have some protections regarding such things or no one would want to do the job and there's no game anyway.

You're right about the (seemingly) abstract nature of the problem and that's an argument seen here before. The problem is, as also mentioned before, that when the issue stops being abstract, all that will really be able to be done is count the bodies - it will be too late for anything else. So, at some point, the democratic populace is going to have to take the scientific consensus of data on faith in terms of what is required, or take their part of responsibility for every single bit of the ugliness that comes afterwards. It is a bloody difficult circle to square, though, especially when as you mention, inequality means that faith in institutions, apparently faith in even demonstrably trustworthy ones like the scientific community, is low.

Yeah, and I remember the polling data here from a few weeks back that suggested Reform were poaching the big majority of their voter base from the Conservatives, anyway. However, for me the big issue here is what appears to be a fracturing political consensus in a (supposedly) well scientifically educated first world nation state regarding an issue that already affects millions and if left unchecked will affect more people on this planet than any other matter short of all out nuclear Holocaust. (Which, indeed may also be part and parcel of the consequences should resources get scarce enough that the big boys start falling out regarding them.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp890n51684o Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said her party will remove all net zero requirements on oil and gas companies drilling in the North Sea if elected. Badenoch is to formally announce the plan to focus solely on "maximising extraction" and to get "all our oil and gas out of the North Sea" in a speech in Aberdeen on Tuesday. Reform UK has said it wants more fossil fuels extracted from the North Sea. The Labour government has committed to banning new exploration licences. A spokesperson said a "fair and orderly transition" away from oil and gas would "drive growth". Exploring new fields would "not take a penny off bills" or improve energy security and would "only accelerate the worsening climate crisis", the government spokesperson warned. The Tories attempting to out-Reform Reform on this matter, then. Perhaps they might listen to the farmers they supposedly care so much about screaming bloody murder about changing weather conditions and crop failures that are a direct result of policy decisions like this one.

You're certainly right there. I do think both the stakes and consequences are more severe than they've ever been, though.

There's something in that, reaping the whirlwind. That being said, depending on the topic, this is far from an issue that will have consequences for just one nation state. If that's true, then the subversion of truth they're pushing will claim the "elites" as well as everyone else, in the end. They can't hide, as much as they might think they can.

"Power doesn't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes outta LYING and lying BIG and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you got 'em trapped." - Senator Roark, Sin City

And to add to this, it's the ideas he represents that need to be neutralised. Having him unable to have the power to be behind such ideas would help and that could take many forms short of him shuffling off. (Not that I would feel much looking at an obituary given the amount of lives the man has already ruined.)

It's just unfortunate that for all of that he can't seem to save himself.

Ha, yes, perhaps I should have been more precise in my own use of words there. Shows the effect they have Of course, it's fine to teach kids that some nasty comments aren't actually harmful to them, but extending that to ignoring the effect words can have on people in a lot of other circumstances - as sometimes people do - is when the trouble tends to start.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5475829-us-boycotts-un-human-rights The United States won’t participate in a United Nations review of its human rights record, arguing engaging with the process would present an endorsement of the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), which the US withdrew from in February. ... paragons of virtue, right? The mask keeps slipping.

And this kind of lie actually represents a threat if enough people believe it in order for policy to be based upon it. "Sticks and stones..." is a dangerous fallacy. Words have power.

The nations that won't move beyond oil and gas for energy generation will either wither under market pressure, or be directly responsible for societal collapse. Either way, their legacy will be mud if they don't adapt.

Repeated for emphasis.

Would definitely make an argument for that.

Most of the 70s and late 80s/early 90s say hello Edit: barring Italia 90, naturally