Extinction Rebellion

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

at least it’ll smell nicer than when these muppets were camped outside my front door  

I would genuinely rather the sea washed away me and my house than have these cnuts at my front door.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Good intentions, something clearly needs to be done on a major scale to address the issue. Climate change deniers are on an equal footing as flat earthers at this point. 

 

However their methods make it very hard for people to buy into their message. It's also awkward for them that emissions in the EU have been on a downward trend for a long time (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-trends-6/assessment-2), so when they're lying under cars crying about how "the Government" are killing the environment their scientific credibility goes out the window immediately.

 

If they want to tackle the real issue then they should get themselves to India or China (without using a plane or a car remember), where their emissions have increased by over 400% in under 30 years, and between them they contribute to over 35% of the TOTAL global CO2 emissions for 2017.(https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/fossil-co2-emissions-all-world-countries-2018-report). Even the US' emissions have remained pretty stable over the same period with some fantastic emerging technologies in electric vehicles, PV panels, wind turbines etc coming from there during that time. 

 

Also their idea of a 'Citizen's Council' to decide the changes that should be made is absolutely laughable. Why have experts advising people who are totally ignorant of the subject what they should be telling the Government to do? Why not just get the experts to tell the Government directly? 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Good intentions, something clearly needs to be done on a major scale to address the issue. Climate change deniers are on an equal footing as flat earthers at this point. 

 

However their methods make it very hard for people to buy into their message. It's also awkward for them that emissions in the EU have been on a downward trend for a long time (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-trends-6/assessment-2), so when they're lying under cars crying about how "the Government" are killing the environment their scientific credibility goes out the window immediately.

 

If they want to tackle the real issue then they should get themselves to India or China (without using a plane or a car remember), where their emissions have increased by over 400% in under 30 years, and between them they contribute to over 35% of the TOTAL global CO2 emissions for 2017.(https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/fossil-co2-emissions-all-world-countries-2018-report). Even the US' emissions have remained pretty stable over the same period with some fantastic emerging technologies in electric vehicles, PV panels, wind turbines etc coming from there during that time. 

 

Also their idea of a 'Citizen's Council' to decide the changes that should be made is absolutely laughable. Why have experts advising people who are totally ignorant of the subject what they should be telling the Government to do? Why not just get the experts to tell the Government directly? 

They could really do their cause more justice if they camped outside the Chinese embassy or Indian embassy, rather than endangering ordinary people.

[SpacedX]

11 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Yes, climate science is hard. It encompasses the observation and study of a unbelievably vast array of natural influences. Which is why even climate scientists, which stem from all directions of scientific fields (geographers, geologists, biologists, physicists, chemists, meteorologists, ecologists, economists, aso aso) disagree on climate science - which is good.

 

But aside from the rogue minority - they really don't. The rate of climate change perhaps but as I mentioned, GCMs may not be fully amenable to a representation by physically based deterministic equations and may in fact be inherently stochastic = whilst all of these disciplines understand the stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.

 

The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, in addition to the Trump administration removing a quarter of climate change references from EPA/government websites and the strategy to curtail the clean power plan, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is increasingly applying pressure on NASA to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CEI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy. As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming, Fortunately, lay understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. I agree that the antics of ER can inflict as much damage as it can good and regard the pressure and incentivisation associated with movements such as the World Benchmarking Association as far more effective. However, there is there is still much work to do yet as climate change deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus...tellingly, this is almost invariably from outside the scientific community.

31 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

And no, I'm not talking about just "an evening" on YouTube. To catch just a glimpse of what is taking place in the scientific world, one needs numerous evenings on YouTube.

 

 No - one needs years and years of expertise gained through the formal and legitimate study of atmospheric science, climatology and applied mathematics as opposed to an opinion conferred through a diploma from the university of You Tube. 

 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No - one needs years and years of expertise gained through the formal and legitimate study of atmospheric science, climatology and applied mathematics as opposed to an opinion conferred through a diploma from the university of You Tube.

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

But aside from the rogue minority - they really don't. The rate of climate change perhaps but as I mentioned, GCMs may not be fully amenable to a representation by physically based deterministic equations and may in fact be inherently stochastic = whilst all of these disciplines understand the stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.

 

The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, in addition to the Trump administration removing a quarter of climate change references from EPA/government websites and the strategy to curtail the clean power plan, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is increasingly applying pressure on NASA to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CEI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy. As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming, Fortunately, lay understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. I agree that the antics of ER can inflict as much damage as it can good and regard the pressure and incentivisation associated with movements such as the World Benchmarking Association as far more effective. However, there is there is still much work to do yet as climate change deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus...tellingly, this is almost invariably from outside the scientific community.

 

 No - one needs years and years of expertise gained through the formal and legitimate study of atmospheric science, climatology and applied mathematics as opposed to an opinion conferred through a diploma from the university of You Tube.

Again, it would make for a much more interesting and fair debate if the public were led by scientists and scientist panels, instead of activists and politicians. They distort the view of the specialists for their own purpose, which too often makes for an ugly read. I wonder why the media aren't interested in such a debate...

 

You're also being rather vague here with regards to the 97% issue - what reference do they want to be removed and what 97% study are we talking about? The four studies often cited I know of in order to cement the 97% theory all have their respective flaws (as mentioned in the "Science & Environment" thread). The number makes for great public stunts and scaremongering, but sadly does not represent the actual happenings within the scientific community - unless you take everything the IPCC or (for instance) John Cook offer as gospel. 

 

As for the last paragraph, that's not the point I was making. I was specifically referring to the discussion within the scientific world, not studying one (or several) of the aforementioned fields. That the media and activists then act as a funnel for a rather one-sided representation (the often cited scientific "consensus" or the Hockey Stick theory, for example).

You can be a fantastic meteorologist or physicist, ecologist or biologist and still don't fully understand climate or rather climate change. No scientist can own the truth, but we can progress as they progress and constantly challenge themselves and other scientists. There is no "consensus" in science.

[Guest MattP]

The one great thing about these protests are the videos that come out of it

 

 

[SpacedX]

41 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Again, it would make for a much more interesting and fair debate if the public were led by scientists and scientist panels, instead of activists and politicians. They distort the view of the specialists for their own purpose, which too often makes for an ugly read. I wonder why the media aren't interested in such a debate...

 

You're also being rather vague here with regards to the 97% issue - what reference do they want to be removed and what 97% study are we talking about? The four studies often cited I know of in order to cement the 97% theory all have their respective flaws (as mentioned in the "Science & Environment" thread). The number makes for great public stunts and scaremongering, but sadly does not represent the actual happenings within the scientific community - unless you take everything the IPCC or (for instance) John Cook offer as gospel. 

 

I'm confident that you have exhaustively discussed this with Leicsmac in the Science Technology and Environment thread who has offered a comprehensive, detailed and highly informed objective rebuttal of your circuitous logic. 

 

41 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

You can be a fantastic meteorologist or physicist, ecologist or biologist and still don't fully understand climate or rather climate change. 

No one claims to fully "understand it" and the associated variables and complexities that drive it - that it is underway and of anthropogenic origin is irrefutable. 

 

41 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

No scientist can own the truth, but we can progress as they progress and constantly challenge themselves and other scientists. 

Such is the basis of the scientific method founded upon the systematic observation, experimentation, measurement, reproducible findings derived from the formulation and subsequent moderation of a hypothesis.

 

Scientists are irrelevant given that the science behind anthropogenic climate change is ineluctable and axiomatic and thereby has a voice of its own.

 

41 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

There is no "consensus" in science.

The same motivations that produced consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjustment as needed. Of course scientists have been incorrect in the past, but they did not stay wrong. As new data arrive, scientists changed their position, some enthusiastically, some begrudgingly. A few were unable to make the transition, going to their graves clinging to their long-held positions. A new generation, with no allegiance to the old ways, emerged to replace them. Thus data transform heresy into truth. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that you refer to represent researchers from 195 countries, and UN rules require unanimity in approval of the report language on climate change.

 

Ocean levels/temperatures, ice caps and glaciers contradict your statement the same ocean levels/temperatures, ice caps and glaciers that don't give a rats arse about You Tube. 

Edited 8 October 2019 by Line-X

[TheUltimateWinner]

The thing that irks me about it is the fact the people they effect aren't the people who can make the biggest difference. 

 

As in, yes we can all take little steps and in our day to day lives and we certainly should actively be trying to be more environmentally friendly, however, we're not the ones who can impose tarrifs, bring in laws to make products more environmentally friendly, setup renewable energy sources etc. 

 

Drivers are having to drive longer distances due to road closures for example as a direct result of protests... seems a bit counter productive. 

[MC Prussian]

8 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I'm confident that you have exhaustively discussed this with Leicsmac in the Science Technology and Environment thread who has offered a comprehensive, detailed and highly informed objective rebuttal of your circuitous logic. 

 

No one claims to fully "understand it" and the associated variables and complexities that drive it - that it is underway and of anthropogenic origin is irrefutable. 

 

Such is the basis of the scientific method founded upon the systematic observation, experimentation, measurement, reproducible findings derived from the formulation and subsequent moderation of a hypothesis.

 

Scientists are irrelevant given that the science behind anthropogenic climate change is ineluctable and axiomatic and thereby has a voice of its own.

 

The same motivations that produced consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjustment as needed. Of course scientists have been incorrect in the past, but they did not stay wrong. As new data arrive, scientists changed their position, some enthusiastically, some begrudgingly. A few were unable to make the transition, going to their graves clinging to their long-held positions. A new generation, with no allegiance to the old ways, emerged to replace them. Thus data transform heresy into truth. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that you refer to represent researchers from 195 countries, and UN rules require unanimity in approval of the report language on climate change.

 

Ocean levels/temperatures, ice caps and glaciers contradict your statement the same ocean levels/temperatures, ice caps and glaciers that don't give a rats arse about You Tube. 

Well, Leicsmac hasn't and he doesn't tend to rebut. He has his position and lately just ignores in-depth discussion and by no means offers rebuttals or any facts to counter my argument. I appreciate that we agree on the measures we can take to make our lives more ecologically friendly (a more bottom-up approach), but we disagree about the scope and size of climate change and the importance/irrelevance of climate change hysteria.

 

Climate change is in parts of anthropogenic origin, no denying that - but we are not the only or the main driver, that much is open for debate. Sadly, we do not talk about other "culprits" as we tend to look at the human population.

Then we need to look at the historical context and define where we are on the timeline and how pressing the issue really is in context.

 

The science behind ACC is a relatively young one and the scientific community still struggles to cope with it. And scientists are relevant - without scientists, there is no science.

I don't see why you'd argue in favour of disregarding scientific opinion (which varies) - are we supposed to have no public debate on the issue and blindly follow the IPCC, NASA, John Cook and climate change activists, no questions asked - is that what your argument boils down to?

 

Exactly, scientists have been incorrect in the past, and they will continue to do so. As we come closer to understanding nature, science evolves and that's what it's all about - only a few decades ago the scientific and media hype was all about global cooling - and the climate change hysteria of today will be old news by tomorrow.

 

You've seen how the IPCC works in the other thread, their reports are based on initial scientific research, then remodeled to fit a political agenda. Many former members of the IPCC committees have come out, criticizing the organization for how it goes on about business. I take most of what the IPCC does or says with a great pinch of salt.

Quote

The administrative entity consists of three layers. The top one is a plenary Panel comprising delegates from 195 member states. It oversees a 30-member Bureau (with accompanying Secretariat) that executes most of the operations of the IPCC. In particular, the Bureau oversees three Working Groups that produce assessment reports on climate change science and policy issues. When the assessment reports are accepted by the Panel they are deemed “IPCC Reports.”

...

Government review is virtually non-existent. About 90 percent of countries in the IPCC did not submit any review comments on the last assessment report and, of the comments received, half were from only two countries. Likewise only a handful of countries provided written comments on the recent Task Group recommendations for reforms of IPCC procedures. The existence of a 195-member plenary Panel thus creates a false impression of extensive oversight activity.

...

Principally, the IPCC Bureau has a great deal of arbitrary power over the content and conclusions of the assessment reports. It faces little restraint in the review process due to weaknesses in the current rules. And the government delegates who comprise the plenary Panel provide what appears to be largely passive and ineffective oversight.

Because so many governments are involved, no one person or agency is in a position to provide effective leadership. Since there are 195 member governments in charge of the IPCC, the oversight function may suffer a “tragedy of the commons”: even if all member states would benefit from its occurrence, no one state would benefit enough to justify unilaterally taking on the job.

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf

The IPCC isn't infallible and not immune to reforms and critical analysis - anyone falling for their work without questioning their methods will also fall for the hysteria.

Have we forgotten about Climategate already?

 

Whilst the Arctic is melting, Antarctica was until recently growing in mass - how does that work out?

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/antarctic-sea-ice-shrinking-rapidly-after-decades-growth-scientists-aren-ncna1025361

 

[foxy boxing]

They shouldn't be targeting ordinary people going about their daily business. it just pisses people off. their protests won't make a bit of difference in changing the minds or the ways of the big companies or corporations or countries that are the biggest polluters. they need the public onside to make a difference and pissing the public off won't help.

[yorkie1999]

Climate change is happening and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Okay we may have contributed to global warming during this very very small period of time that we've been on it, but the planet has gone through all this before, many times. It's only man's ego that thinks he can stop it. It's like feeding a tree with fertiliser and then complaining it's growing too fast. 

[Milo]

Well I was supposed to working at Smithfields today, so they’ve knackered up my working day 🤨

 

I agree with the sentiment, but not the methods. 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

They shouldn't be targeting ordinary people going about their daily business. it just pisses people off. their protests won't make a bit of difference in changing the minds or the ways of the big companies or corporations or countries that are the biggest polluters. they need the public onside to make a difference and pissing the public off won't help.

Right.

Look at the way the plastic in our oceans campaign was handled. Very direct and poignant. Almost totally eliminated plastic straws overnight. 

You need to win the hearts and minds. This will just make people more stubborn.

[Finnegan]

One thing that does annoy me is that the environment is increasingly becoming another left/right entrenched issue. It really shouldn't have anything to do with your party politics. 

 

Watching normally pretty intelligent people get seduced by climate change denying because its the default Generic Right Wing Position is just as weird as watching pretty intelligent people get seduced into antisemitism because criticising Israel is the Generic Left Wing Opinion. 

 

You should be able to be anti immigration, anti big government, anti welfare state, pro privatisation and still have the good sense to recognise the way we treat the planet is not only having an impact on it but also probably isn't sustainable long term. 

 

It's quite frankly embarrassing watching people jump on a bandwagon of criticising literally anything "green" just because they're "Right Team" and green is somehow "Left Team."

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

One thing that does annoy me is that the environment is increasingly becoming another left/right entrenched issue. It really shouldn't have anything to do with your party politics. 

 

Watching normally pretty intelligent people get seduced by climate change denying because its the default Generic Right Wing Position is just as weird as watching pretty intelligent people get seduced into antisemitism because criticising Israel is the Generic Left Wing Opinion. 

 

You should be able to be anti immigration, anti big government, anti welfare state, pro privatisation and still have the good sense to recognise the way we treat the planet is not only having an impact on it but also probably isn't sustainable long term. 

 

It's quite frankly embarrassing watching people jump on a bandwagon of criticising literally anything "green" just because they're "Right Team" and green is somehow "Left Team."

Genuinely not sure where this is even coming from. At least on here, many right wingers are on board with climate science. Just not on board with these muppets blocking streets. 

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, Leicsmac hasn't and he doesn't tend to rebut. He has his position and lately just ignores in-depth discussion and by no means offers rebuttals or any facts to counter my argument. I appreciate that we agree on the measures we can take to make our lives more ecologically friendly (a more bottom-up approach), but we disagree about the scope and size of climate change and the importance/irrelevance of climate change hysteria.

 

Climate change is in parts of anthropogenic origin, no denying that - but we are not the only or the main driver, that much is open for debate. Sadly, we do not talk about other "culprits" as we tend to look at the human population.

Then we need to look at the historical context and define where we are on the timeline and how pressing the issue really is in context.

 

The science behind ACC is a relatively young one and the scientific community still struggles to cope with it. And scientists are relevant - without scientists, there is no science.

I don't see why you'd argue in favour of disregarding scientific opinion (which varies) - are we supposed to have no public debate on the issue and blindly follow the IPCC, NASA, John Cook and climate change activists, no questions asked - is that what your argument boils down to?

 

Exactly, scientists have been incorrect in the past, and they will continue to do so. As we come closer to understanding nature, science evolves and that's what it's all about - only a few decades ago the scientific and media hype was all about global cooling - and the climate change hysteria of today will be old news by tomorrow.

 

You've seen how the IPCC works in the other thread, their reports are based on initial scientific research, then remodeled to fit a political agenda. Many former members of the IPCC committees have come out, criticizing the organization for how it goes on about business. I take most of what the IPCC does or says with a great pinch of salt.

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf

The IPCC isn't infallible and not immune to reforms and critical analysis - anyone falling for their work without questioning their methods will also fall for the hysteria.

Have we forgotten about Climategate already?

 

Whilst the Arctic is melting, Antarctica was until recently growing in mass - how does that work out?

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/antarctic-sea-ice-shrinking-rapidly-after-decades-growth-scientists-aren-ncna1025361

 

This thread is about the posturing and disruption associated with ER. Once again, your endlessly recycled confirmation bias has been comprehensively addressed in great detail on another thread. It's utterly exhausting.

 

Science is not about opinion, and in irrespective of that, you are not about to change yours - thankfully it is becoming increasingly marginal, not that the future of the planet has the time to entertain any such folly.   

 

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Whilst the Arctic is melting, Antarctica was until recently growing in mass - how does that work out?

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/antarctic-sea-ice-shrinking-rapidly-after-decades-growth-scientists-aren-ncna1025361

 

 What do you have to tell me about the measurable increase of circumpolar winds, ENSO and the mitigating effect of CDW and WAIS - in addition to the Southern Ocean Circumpolar Current - in particular topological influence of submerged topography along the edge of the Antarctic continental shelf? Furthermore, if you wish to discuss the strong statistical relationship between PITT winds and tropical Pacific SSTs in respect of historical wind forcing of the Amundsen Sea, which we will need to do - can I suggest that we take it to another thread?

 

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Genuinely not sure where this is even coming from. At least on here, many right wingers are on board with climate science. Just not on board with these muppets blocking streets. 

And centrists, too - but in today's political climate, it's almost forced upon the public to think Black or White or strictly Left or Right, without giving any thought to the possibility that there are loads of people caught in the middle also and that there is plenty of nuance.

 

The media tend to perpetrate extremist views on both sides and offer little to no sensible discussion on the topic, which is a real shame.

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Milo said:

Well I was supposed to working at Smithfields today, so they’ve knackered up my working day 🤨

 

I agree with the sentiment, but not the methods. 

Do you actually agree with the sentiments though? Extinction Rebellion demands a carbon neutral country by 2025, that pretty much means all flights being grounded, about 30 million cars coming off the road, an end to economic growth, mass unemployment, the end of farming, no central heating and gas cookers. Putting LSD in your Vegan burger isn't going to satify 60 million people.

I don't believe for one minute there is any serious support for this happening in the country. The current government target of 2050 is optomistic and we have to hope for huge techonological developments for that to happen.

[yorkie1999]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Right.

Look at the way the plastic in our oceans campaign was handled. Very direct and poignant. Almost totally eliminated plastic straws overnight. 

You need to win the hearts and minds. This will just make people more stubborn.

Did it? I can buy 1000 packs of 200 in 10 seconds.

   https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drinkstuff-Super-Jumbo-Straws-9-Inch/dp/B002Q134ZE?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_3

[ealingfox]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do you actually agree with the sentiments though? Extinction Rebellion demands a carbon neutral country by 2025, that pretty much means all flights being grounded, about 30 million cars coming off the road, an end to economic growth, mass unemployment, the end of farming, no central heating and gas cookers. Putting LSD in your Vegan burger isn't going to satify 60 million people.

I don't believe for one minute there is any serious support for this happening in the country. The current government target of 2050 is optomistic and we have to hope for huge techonological developments for that to happen.

 

No, that would be zero-carbon, not carbon-neutral.

[MC Prussian]

9 minutes ago, Line-X said:

This thread is about the posturing and disruption associated with ER. Once again, your endlessly recycled confirmation bias has been comprehensively addressed in great detail on another thread. It's utterly exhausting.

 

Science is not about opinion, and in irrespective of that, you are not about to change yours - thankfully it is becoming increasingly marginal, not that the future of the planet has the time to entertain any such folly.   

 

 What do you have to tell me about the measurable increase of circumpolar winds, ENSO and the mitigating effect of CDW and WAIS - in addition to the Southern Ocean Circumpolar Current - in particular topological influence of submerged topography along the edge of the Antarctic continental shelf? Furthermore, if you wish to discuss the strong statistical relationship between PITT winds and tropical Pacific SSTs in respect of historical wind forcing of the Amundsen Sea, which we will need to do - can I suggest that we take it to another thread?

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly - we're digressing here again. Most of our posts combined should probably be moved to the other thread.

 

I am happy to be proven wrong and I appreciate sensible debate. I think that moves all of us forward. As for the "confirmation bias" you're alleging to, I too often have the impression that I get attacked for quoting the wrong people (and we can debate their credibility on their own, sure), but never for quoting "wrong" statements in publications - why attack the messenger, when you should be attacking the message instead?

 

However, if you're offering a more in-depth discussion, then you'll surely agree you'll have to formulate it in a way that myself and others can follow you and understand you more easily.

Throwing around scientific jargon doesn't help educating the masses.

Edited 8 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

8 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

No, that would be zero-carbon, not carbon-neutral.

Ugh, they state "transition to net zero carbon emissions by 2025".

 

Still, trying to push it to 2025 is an out-of-this-world demand, as one single nation as the UK - who is already doing pretty well in terms of reduction of emissions on a global level - cannot make that much of an influence on its own in the space of six years, as climate knows no boundaries and improvements can only be felt with a particular delay (which one cannot forecast), much later than 2025.

 

The biggest polluters would have be held the most accountable and the UN would have to demand the most drastic measures in their cases specifically - are they doing it, though? And if not, why not?

Oh, look - China and India are reversing tables:

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/17/china-india-demand-cash-climate-action-eve-un-summit/

 

In that regard, activist movements such as ER are hypocrites - they are preaching to the choir in places where one is already conscious about climate change and personal responsibility, and the dangers of counterproductive actions leading to strong resistance from the general population is thus increasing.

 

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

No, that would be zero-carbon, not carbon-neutral.

Nope, zero carbon means all cars coming off the road.

 

If it were totally zero they wouldn't even be able to have their own diesel generator

 

 

Edited 8 October 2019 by MattP

[lgfualol]

Although shitty, they have to be extreme, bit like the suffragettes who everyone mocked at the beginning. By pissing off half the country, people are talking about it, even if it is triggered boomers.

 

We should all be worried about climate change.