leicsmac

If that was the answer that was going to be forthcoming, then I would certainly agree.

.... which are?

... and then practically all different policy is often based out of the mouths of leaders that these people then elect.

Michael Bloomberg on US climate policy: "From 2017 to 2020, during a period of federal inaction, cities, states, businesses and the public rose to the challenge to uphold our nation’s commitments - and now, we are ready to do it again." Promising, but it is a hope rather than an expectation that it will be any more than damage limitation.

I would think, however, that some questions might do to be asked as to why this man was clearly known to authorities but they were unable to stop him, alongside clearly acknowledging that the guy is a bastard. It might help prevent horrible events like this from happening again. These things rarely occur in a vacuum. Don't forget empathy for all those terrible LGBT people who are clearly living in sin and are an abomination before God and don't deserve equal rights, too. Oh, and those godless socialist scientists blinding people to the truth of God and going on about preserving the future when only your own life and then your afterlife matters. Apparently.

Best not to be complacent though.

More fool anyone for expecting otherwise tbh.

Danish right wing parliament member Anders Vistisen on the matter of Greenland: "It is not for sale. Let me put it into words you might understand. Mr Trump, f— off."

Thank you for asking. There are multiple possibilities on that front, but I've chosen two as examples - one that affects the UK mostly indirectly, and is extremely horrible but not catastrophic, and one that does affect the UK (and everywhere else) very directly, and is.. well, read on. The former is more likely than the latter, but that doesn't mean the latter could never happen. Both are based on projections on temperature increase given present trends and action, and are set 25ish years into the future (so in the lifetimes of most of the users here), so an increase of roughly 2 degrees C average globally on 1850 levels. Scenario 1: After temperatures have increased by the amount stated above, equatorial and tropical regions around the world suffer consecutive failed harvests due to increased flooding and drought. Massive humanitarian crises develop in those areas as people simply run out of food and potable water and are unable to sustain themselves - the scale of the matter means that even the greatest charitable donations by other nations do little. Sub-Saharan Africa descends into border conflict and then outright and civil wars as nations battle for control over the few water sources and viable growing areas left. But another key flashpoint is South Asia, where India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, southern China and others - fully a third to a half of the world's population - are also at risk. A three way conflict develops for control of the glaciers of Kashmir. Nuclear war between India, Pakistan and China is narrowly avoided through skilled diplomacy, but the conventional conflict soon escalates beyond the local and hundreds of millions are caught up in it. The other nations, though not touched directly, face a refugee crisis like never before as those hundreds of millions flee their countries. Alarmed, those others mostly close their borders, abandoning them to their fate. The response is quick. Multiple terrorist organisations arise, seeking to change the immigration policy to a more lenient one by means of force. Bankrolled by both the nations originally in trouble (under the table) and by those looking to forment discord in the West, they inflict damage to lives, infrastructure and morale. And all this time, the UK and the West is dealing with increased crop pressure of their own due to increased flooding and drought (though not as bad as equatorial regions), at vast economic cost. End result: hundreds of millions likely die or are displaced over the course of a decade, and though survivable, the cost in lives, money and infrastructure is felt by everyone. Scenario 2: This one begins much like the one above, but this time the various powers of the world are more active more quickly. China allies with Russia, allowing access to the fresh water of the Kashmir glaciers in return for access to the breadbasket of Ukraine. Of course, this requires the Ukrainians to be out of the way... and the Russians are only too happy to oblige there. Similar situations begin to crop up as bigger nations simply roll in and take possession of arable land and fresh water wherever they can find it from the smaller ones. A new Cold War begins as blocs arise, East and West. And at some point in the next few years, either power wants the Arctic (or some other area rich with natural resources) for itself. Military spending increases rapidly, which only makes the resource economic issue more stark. One side stakes a claim, putting armed troops in a previously neutral area. The other responds. There is a misunderstanding. Things escalate. Conventional war. One side begins to lose. The nuclear suitcase is opened. End result: Mad Max. Now, these are only two possible scenarios, there are many more. And climate change isn't shown to be a driver of war in of itself, but it does create situations, through threatening basic human needs, that make war far more likely to occur. The threat here isn't just posed by the natural world, as damaging as floods and drought and other extreme weather will be. It's also from our own, very human, response to it. Edit: just to be clear, while these scenarios are hypothetical, the crop failures and water shortages due to extreme weather from which they begin are practically inevitable unless action is taken. The only hypothetical element is the global response to those crop failures.

The videos of the January 6th insurrectionists being freed make for pretty grim viewing.

Which is why the aforementioned are part of a suite of solutions. Across the whole world. Unless the UK fancies the idea of more extremes of weather in all directions and, seeing as it isn't the only country in the world, plenty of climate refugees from places where it's gone even more extreme. Of course, the UK and other parties could simply look to sit out out and abandon them to their fate, but I'm not sure how well they'd like that, especially if the nations they're part of that are drawing their last breath are well armed.

Pump and dump is one of the classic scams. This is just the latest slightly more sophisticated iteration thereof.

Well, as a species we'd better get on with it. Time is money. And human lives. Lots of both.

I don't get why some people think this future isn't possible, and I certainly struggle to consider why they think isn't necessary. This still stands.

I would have thought the simple point of "pay some to fix this now or lose much more, probably everything, later" would be enough of an economic argument, but clearly, as you say, that's not fast-food enough for most people's taste. It may well be that the economic way is the most effective way to go, but what that does mean is running things to the very edge before enough people give a shit to spend on change. And that might not be wise given the stakes involved go from hundreds of millions dead or displaced right up to catastrophic civilisational collapse. But...it may be the way we end up heading anyway.

It's come to a pretty pass when it's the Chinese among the highest power nations appearing to take the environmental future of planet the most seriously in terms of government action.

Yep. Definitely Ted Faro vibes. ... did anyone really think this wasn't a modern day pump and dump scam? Wild that the instigator is president though. Nixon would admire the degree of crookedness.

This would of course be the best possible outcome, but it might be good if it were sure to happen, and happen quick.

I think it was a proto nationalism (certainly a belief in national/tribal superiority) that was (and is) a key driver of imperialism, but that's a big debate that might need another thread. Suffice it to say for now that yes, that sentiment of nationalist superiority is what I'm referring to. If that's not felt to be linked to colonial sentiment in opinion, then fair enough.

Undoubtedly so, but the post I responded to referenced German and Japanese sentiments on the matter. Yes, I get the response here and this one scenario is pretty damn cringy, but pardon me for not being so dismissive of any acknowledgement of historical atrocities from any nation when the same sentiment responsible for it is on the rise - rapidly - again, in many places.

Ah. Then I would add that said cultural cringe changes nothing about the fact that if folks don't acknowledge history and take due action, then it is repeated either through ignorance or malice.

Would you mind unpacking this one a little more, please?

I said yesterday that this is wilful misinformation to the point of being libel that could well be damaging and harmful to people. But thanks to legal loopholes, such wilful misinformation is allowed to stand and such harm is allowed to be caused as a result of it. Then some folks stand around looking so surprised that the harm and damage occurred.

Imagine a German or Japanese citizen (artist or otherwise) seeing the ethos that represents the very darkest part of their nations history on the resurgence, largely because people either ignore history that they had nothing to do with or are hellbent on repeating it because they want something to do with it now.

That's because there's isn't a serious argument against taking action that isn't based on short term self interest. The scientific facts regarding temperature increases are irrefutable (unless one can prove the entire climate science corps is in on something) and we're already seeing the consequences. I would love, however, for someone to come in here and post an eloquent defence of why the long term (and therefore action in this case) doesn't matter from a moral standpoint, we can let the world burn to be king of the ashes for a short time and therefore justify no action on climate change. It would be really interesting to read.