9 ms·

> inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work Funny. Seems like it's wor

> inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work Funny. Seems like it's working, remarkably quickly, to me: Michael Gove, the current Environment Minister, met with the protesters and accepted the need for urgent action, and other points. Far more than might be expected from the rather extremist position of today's Tory party. The opposition have acknowledged all their points, and pledged to make climate emergency policy. They are currently trying to force a vote on calling a climate emergency in the Commons. The organisers have turned up for interview on most of the UK's serious news outlets, including, I think, twice on the Today programme. Even those who've studiously avoided the topic are now talking about it. Oh, and public opinion of ER appears to have risen since the Easter protests. On that basis, I sincerely hope ER continue, and can step up their actions to more locations and companies too.

roenxi 8y ago
If your first point of success is getting the Environment Minister to publicly commit to being pro-environment, you're working to a very low bar. It sounds like a problem that might be heading for a government committee rather than actual action. This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held since the industrial revolution in the late 18th century. Exploiting the environment for the benefit of the people. This strategy has worked out quite well so far - cities are more far popular places to live than jungles and fields. Protesting can work - but there have been environmental protests for the last 20 years or so and have achieved much less than (1) big research spending on renewables and (2) using nuclear reactors. This is because apart from those two approaches, the environmentalists have proposed no solutions that don't involve committing the poor and middle class to reduced living standards. I'll spell it out even though I think it is self evident - we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admission is remarkable - but useless. For action we need a change of government. We've already had a select committee on climate that was unequivocal about what action and urgency was needed. > This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held No, that really isn't true. The extremist position is continuing regardless in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not acting back in the 19th before there was any knowledge or evidence is not really comparable. It was Thatcher and Reagan that did so much to get the agreement for world phase out of CFCs in 1987. A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. Thatcher was remarkably well informed in the earliest days of climate science. Also one of the first to call for global action on climate. So despite being of an anti-regulation mindset she was happy to promote and implement strong regulation to save our skins. From her speech to the UN in 1989: "What we are now doing to the world … is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. "The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not." She lost interest, or time, for the environment later in her premiership as it became ever more inept on most issues, caught up with in-party fighting (often EU related), and stupid ideas like poll tax. Yet her early and mid term record on climate and pollution is better than any since. > we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option. The poor will be more severely affected by climate changes than anyone.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. And that is your hint that you have misunderstood how the right of politics works, including the extreme right. There is no lobby that wants to destroy the environment because they don't like it. If someone comes along with a credible threat to people, they act on it. The issue is that the ozone layer burning away poses a very clear threat to people where the cost of inaction obviously exceeds the cost of dealing with it. Global warming poses a very real threat to the environment and a high likelihood of change. It remains opaque whether the costs of dealing with that change are higher than preventing that change. We can guarantee the academics have no idea on that one economically speaking; their record of forecasting in that arena is just as bad as everyone elses. Historically, the proposed costs of preventing change have been enormous. And, personal pet peeve, the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW. So it can't be that threatening to them.
    - viraptor 8y ago
      > the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW You're mixing two groups of people and presenting them together based on your idea of them. Opinions about the risk of nuclear power and the risk of agw are orthogonal.
      - roenxi 8y ago
        I'm doing a lot of hand-waving but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions. I don't see how a person can be taken seriously if they are claiming there is an extreme risk from climate change and not fairly radically pro-nuclear. I've seen mass protests about climate change, they don't tend to be chanting "nuclear now". The times might be changing now, but for most of the environmental movement's history nuclear has remained by far the most cost-effective choice. If they were serious about the risk of climate change then there would be massive pushes for nuclear power coming out of the green factions. I havn't seen it; only in isolated cases (tending towards engineers and scientists who care about the environment). The mainstream environmentalists tend to be in favour solar and wind. If there is time to let perfect be the enemy of good enough then the threat can't be that urgent. The right wing is perfectly reasonable in dragging their heels. Look how successful that strategy has been so far; solar is almost economic on its own merits.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
> need for urgent action funny because most contaminants in water and air come from China and India what is the UK environmental minister going to do about that? unless the rest of the world agrees on the need on both regulate local industry and heavily tax import from unregulated countries nothing is going to change for the planet situation the rest are mostly feel-good measures that carry increased cost on the population without shifting the global scenario very much.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  China and India emit far less per person than any Western country while simultaneously producing the most carbon intensive goods for Westerners and having that counted on their tally. Unless you are willing to flat out say that you think an Indian or Chinese life isn't worth a Western one this line of debate falls apart. Who produced the vast majority of emissions up until 20 years ago? It's rank hypocrisy.
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    feels like you all read only half of the comment before getting blinded by righteous outrage the whole point I was making is that local policies end up with outsourced pollution, so it's an issue to be either tackeld internationally, which is unrealistic, or coupled with local protectionism, to the same effect of projecting the policy outward
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > come from China and India Utterly irrelevant. Everywhere needs to take action to solve the issue, USA, China and India especially. Both China and India are investing heavily in renewables, though clearly they have some way to go. The odd one out, presently, is the USA. I expect that to change soon enough. Doesn't matter who goes first, who does more, or when, just that everyone takes enough action. You'll be able to level the same criticism against any of the first countries that start inching toward acknowledging and starting to change the system. Still doesn't matter. Even if it's not yet enough. Only the end result does. Maybe it will eventually come to sanctions and closing trade to nations that aren't doing enough. Simply put, someone has to go first, the first step is never enough.
pjc50 8y ago
None of those are actual action that could be seen in the overall CO2 emission levels, though.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Sure, but I still find it remarkable that they have achieved the profile they have, yet haven't even existed for a year yet! Surprisingly the UK has done remarkably well on climate over the last decade, compared to many. Emissions have steadily fallen. Normally demos, regardless of scale, have politicians pretending they didn't happen at all. I'm inclined to think all they need to do is keep at it.

roenxi 8y ago

If your first point of success is getting the Environment Minister to publicly commit to being pro-environment, you're working to a very low bar. It sounds like a problem that might be heading for a government committee rather than actual action. This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held since the industrial revolution in the late 18th century. Exploiting the environment for the benefit of the people. This strategy has worked out quite well so far - cities are more far popular places to live than jungles and fields. Protesting can work - but there have been environmental protests for the last 20 years or so and have achieved much less than (1) big research spending on renewables and (2) using nuclear reactors. This is because apart from those two approaches, the environmentalists have proposed no solutions that don't involve committing the poor and middle class to reduced living standards. I'll spell it out even though I think it is self evident - we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admission is remarkable - but useless. For action we need a change of government. We've already had a select committee on climate that was unequivocal about what action and urgency was needed. > This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held No, that really isn't true. The extremist position is continuing regardless in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not acting back in the 19th before there was any knowledge or evidence is not really comparable. It was Thatcher and Reagan that did so much to get the agreement for world phase out of CFCs in 1987. A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. Thatcher was remarkably well informed in the earliest days of climate science. Also one of the first to call for global action on climate. So despite being of an anti-regulation mindset she was happy to promote and implement strong regulation to save our skins. From her speech to the UN in 1989: "What we are now doing to the world … is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. "The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not." She lost interest, or time, for the environment later in her premiership as it became ever more inept on most issues, caught up with in-party fighting (often EU related), and stupid ideas like poll tax. Yet her early and mid term record on climate and pollution is better than any since. > we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option. The poor will be more severely affected by climate changes than anyone.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. And that is your hint that you have misunderstood how the right of politics works, including the extreme right. There is no lobby that wants to destroy the environment because they don't like it. If someone comes along with a credible threat to people, they act on it. The issue is that the ozone layer burning away poses a very clear threat to people where the cost of inaction obviously exceeds the cost of dealing with it. Global warming poses a very real threat to the environment and a high likelihood of change. It remains opaque whether the costs of dealing with that change are higher than preventing that change. We can guarantee the academics have no idea on that one economically speaking; their record of forecasting in that arena is just as bad as everyone elses. Historically, the proposed costs of preventing change have been enormous. And, personal pet peeve, the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW. So it can't be that threatening to them.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    > the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW You're mixing two groups of people and presenting them together based on your idea of them. Opinions about the risk of nuclear power and the risk of agw are orthogonal.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      I'm doing a lot of hand-waving but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions. I don't see how a person can be taken seriously if they are claiming there is an extreme risk from climate change and not fairly radically pro-nuclear. I've seen mass protests about climate change, they don't tend to be chanting "nuclear now". The times might be changing now, but for most of the environmental movement's history nuclear has remained by far the most cost-effective choice. If they were serious about the risk of climate change then there would be massive pushes for nuclear power coming out of the green factions. I havn't seen it; only in isolated cases (tending towards engineers and scientists who care about the environment). The mainstream environmentalists tend to be in favour solar and wind. If there is time to let perfect be the enemy of good enough then the threat can't be that urgent. The right wing is perfectly reasonable in dragging their heels. Look how successful that strategy has been so far; solar is almost economic on its own merits.

LoSboccacc 8y ago

> need for urgent action funny because most contaminants in water and air come from China and India what is the UK environmental minister going to do about that? unless the rest of the world agrees on the need on both regulate local industry and heavily tax import from unregulated countries nothing is going to change for the planet situation the rest are mostly feel-good measures that carry increased cost on the population without shifting the global scenario very much.

A2017U1 8y ago
China and India emit far less per person than any Western country while simultaneously producing the most carbon intensive goods for Westerners and having that counted on their tally. Unless you are willing to flat out say that you think an Indian or Chinese life isn't worth a Western one this line of debate falls apart. Who produced the vast majority of emissions up until 20 years ago? It's rank hypocrisy.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  feels like you all read only half of the comment before getting blinded by righteous outrage the whole point I was making is that local policies end up with outsourced pollution, so it's an issue to be either tackeld internationally, which is unrealistic, or coupled with local protectionism, to the same effect of projecting the policy outward
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> come from China and India Utterly irrelevant. Everywhere needs to take action to solve the issue, USA, China and India especially. Both China and India are investing heavily in renewables, though clearly they have some way to go. The odd one out, presently, is the USA. I expect that to change soon enough. Doesn't matter who goes first, who does more, or when, just that everyone takes enough action. You'll be able to level the same criticism against any of the first countries that start inching toward acknowledging and starting to change the system. Still doesn't matter. Even if it's not yet enough. Only the end result does. Maybe it will eventually come to sanctions and closing trade to nations that aren't doing enough. Simply put, someone has to go first, the first step is never enough.

pjc50 8y ago

None of those are actual action that could be seen in the overall CO2 emission levels, though.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Sure, but I still find it remarkable that they have achieved the profile they have, yet haven't even existed for a year yet! Surprisingly the UK has done remarkably well on climate over the last decade, compared to many. Emissions have steadily fallen. Normally demos, regardless of scale, have politicians pretending they didn't happen at all. I'm inclined to think all they need to do is keep at it.