The Politics of Climate Change Advocacy - Britain

[HikerGuy83]

MSN

www.msn.com

Elections have consequences, and that sometimes includes even the obscure ones. The latest example comes from the United Kingdom, where last week’s election for a single parliamentary seat has set off debates within Britain’s two major parties over climate policies.

The ruling Conservatives barely held the suburban London seat vacated by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s resignation. The Labour Party had been expected to grab the district, which Mr. Johnson won by around 7,000 votes in the 2019 election, and on the same day Labour pulled off a far bigger swing in another by-election in the north of England.

Within hours of the result, it was clear Labour’s loss came down to environmental policies. The Tory candidate to replace Mr. Johnson framed the race as a referendum on London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s plan to expand a tax on older vehicles to crack down on carbon-dioxide emissions. The tax disproportionately hits lower-income households and small businesses that can’t afford to buy newer cars, and it is unpopular.

Message received. Labour Party leader Keir Starmer on Friday called on fellow party member Mr. Khan to “reflect” on whether the extension of the vehicle tax should go ahead as scheduled in August. Over the weekend Mr. Starmer warned party leaders that Labour is doing something “very wrong” if it sticks to unpopular policies such as the car tax.

************************

This epitomizes the entire problem for me.

It's hard to know where to start.

The law in question will likely NOT move the CO2 needle. It just irritates people and caused a POLITICAL PARTY an issue.

So, that does not mean the law is a bad idea from a climate standpoint. Awareness is important.

But this simply isn't the way to do it.

And if the labor movement folds....what message does that send ?

Way way way to complex when it doesn't need to be.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This was the final paragraph in the article:

The climate movement has been marked by the contradiction of ever more extreme policies that have little effect on temperatures but meet ever more political resistance because of their costs. The political parties in democracies that recognize reality first will benefit.

*********************************

That should raise the hair on your neck (IMO).

This has gotten way too far off course.

 

[Crick]

MSN

www.msn.com

Elections have consequences, and that sometimes includes even the obscure ones. The latest example comes from the United Kingdom, where last week’s election for a single parliamentary seat has set off debates within Britain’s two major parties over climate policies.

The ruling Conservatives barely held the suburban London seat vacated by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s resignation. The Labour Party had been expected to grab the district, which Mr. Johnson won by around 7,000 votes in the 2019 election, and on the same day Labour pulled off a far bigger swing in another by-election in the north of England.

Within hours of the result, it was clear Labour’s loss came down to environmental policies. The Tory candidate to replace Mr. Johnson framed the race as a referendum on London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s plan to expand a tax on older vehicles to crack down on carbon-dioxide emissions. The tax disproportionately hits lower-income households and small businesses that can’t afford to buy newer cars, and it is unpopular.

Message received. Labour Party leader Keir Starmer on Friday called on fellow party member Mr. Khan to “reflect” on whether the extension of the vehicle tax should go ahead as scheduled in August. Over the weekend Mr. Starmer warned party leaders that Labour is doing something “very wrong” if it sticks to unpopular policies such as the car tax.

************************

This epitomizes the entire problem for me.

It's hard to know where to start.

Then I have to wonder how you came to feel it epitomizes the entire problem.

The law in question will likely NOT move the CO2 needle.

Of course not. But a thousand London's doing the same thing will.

It just irritates people and caused a POLITICAL PARTY an issue.

It does more than just irritates people. It advances London's efforts to cut down their CO2 emissions. It might have been nice had their been something done to offset the cost to those in lower income brackets: tax incentives or a subsidy or the like.

So, that does not mean the law is a bad idea from a climate standpoint. Awareness is important.

Yes. And so is actually doing something.

But this simply isn't the way to do it.

It might have been the only way to do it. Neither of us know all the particulars - hell, the locals likely don't know all the particulars. But as I'm sure we've all heard in a hundred different contexts, doing what's right rarely means doing what's popular.

And if the labor movement folds....what message does that send ?

Folds? The entire movement? Hardly likely. If you mean if they back down on this question, it will tell some folks that they lack firm principles and tell others that they care about the little guy.

Way way way to complex when it doesn't need to be.

Why do you think it doesn't need to be?
Advocasy? Britan? You've probably got time to fix those.

 

[theHawk]

The Climate Hoaxers are worried. Less and less people are buying into their religion, and more and more people are leaving it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then I have to wonder how you came to feel it epitomizes the entire problem.

Of course not. But a thousand London's doing the same thing will.

It does more than just irritates people. It advances London's efforts to cut down their CO2 emissions. It might have been nice had their been something done to offset the cost to those in lower income brackets: tax incentives or a subsidy or the like.

Yes. And so is actually doing something.

It might have been the only way to do it. Neither of us know all the particulars - hell, the locals likely don't know all the particulars. But as I'm sure we've all heard in a hundred different contexts, doing what's right rarely means doing what's popular.

Folds? The entire movement? Hardly likely. If you mean if they back down on this question, it will tell some folks that they lack firm principles and tell others that they care about the little guy.

Why do you think it doesn't need to be?
Advocasy? Britan? You've probably got time to fix those.

Of course not. But a thousand London's doing the same thing will.

LOL! Billions in taxes for politicians to spend. Pulled from the pockets of the poor and middle class.
And in 1000 years, the temperature will be 0.001 degrees cooler.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Oh, here's a gem.

Another climate scientist (who might be brilliant at his job but) who is an idiot when it comes to messaging:

MSN

www.msn.com

“We are careening toward fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events."

Now that wasn't an alarmist statement.

"The only way out is to end fossil fuels,”

Of course. I might even agree with him, but I would not take that kind of an approach.

And he continued: “Speaking as a scientist, it seems ignorant and short-sighted. It’s certainly a form of climate denial. And I have no doubt that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists — and those who chose to stand with them — will, in the future, be considered criminals.”

And there you have it. Trotsky in a climate scientist's coat.

I wonder if he realizes that shutting up will cut down on "needless" greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, here's a gem.

Another climate scientist (who might be brilliant at his job but) who is an idiot when it comes to messaging:

MSN

www.msn.com

“We are careening toward fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events."

Now that wasn't an alarmist statement.

"The only way out is to end fossil fuels,”

Of course. I might even agree with him, but I would not take that kind of an approach.

And he continued: “Speaking as a scientist, it seems ignorant and short-sighted. It’s certainly a form of climate denial. And I have no doubt that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists — and those who chose to stand with them — will, in the future, be considered criminals.”

And there you have it. Trotsky in a climate scientist's coat.

I wonder if he realizes that shutting up will cut down on "needless" greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are careening toward fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events. And it will not plateau there: more fossil fuels more heat, more death. The only way out is to end fossil fuels,” he wrote. “No amount of tree planting, recycling, carbon offsetting, or wishful carbon-capture thinking will ever change this.”

Will air-conditioning help?

 

[HikerGuy83]

“We are careening toward fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events. And it will not plateau there: more fossil fuels more heat, more death. The only way out is to end fossil fuels,” he wrote. “No amount of tree planting, recycling, carbon offsetting, or wishful carbon-capture thinking will ever change this.”

Will air-conditioning help?

Only if it is solar driven.

 

[Crick]

Oh, here's a gem.

Another climate scientist (who might be brilliant at his job but) who is an idiot when it comes to messaging:

MSN

www.msn.com

“We are careening toward fossil-fueled heatwaves that will kill over a million people in single events."

Now that wasn't an alarmist statement.

"The only way out is to end fossil fuels,”

Of course. I might even agree with him, but I would not take that kind of an approach.

And he continued: “Speaking as a scientist, it seems ignorant and short-sighted. It’s certainly a form of climate denial. And I have no doubt that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists — and those who chose to stand with them — will, in the future, be considered criminals.”

And there you have it. Trotsky in a climate scientist's coat.

I wonder if he realizes that shutting up will cut down on "needless" greenhouse gas emissions.

I wonder if you'll ever find one of those fossil fuel executives for a similar profile piece.

 

[ding]

MSN

www.msn.com

Elections have consequences, and that sometimes includes even the obscure ones. The latest example comes from the United Kingdom, where last week’s election for a single parliamentary seat has set off debates within Britain’s two major parties over climate policies.

The ruling Conservatives barely held the suburban London seat vacated by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s resignation. The Labour Party had been expected to grab the district, which Mr. Johnson won by around 7,000 votes in the 2019 election, and on the same day Labour pulled off a far bigger swing in another by-election in the north of England.

Within hours of the result, it was clear Labour’s loss came down to environmental policies. The Tory candidate to replace Mr. Johnson framed the race as a referendum on London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s plan to expand a tax on older vehicles to crack down on carbon-dioxide emissions. The tax disproportionately hits lower-income households and small businesses that can’t afford to buy newer cars, and it is unpopular.

Message received. Labour Party leader Keir Starmer on Friday called on fellow party member Mr. Khan to “reflect” on whether the extension of the vehicle tax should go ahead as scheduled in August. Over the weekend Mr. Starmer warned party leaders that Labour is doing something “very wrong” if it sticks to unpopular policies such as the car tax.

************************

This epitomizes the entire problem for me.

It's hard to know where to start.

The law in question will likely NOT move the CO2 needle. It just irritates people and caused a POLITICAL PARTY an issue.

So, that does not mean the law is a bad idea from a climate standpoint. Awareness is important.

But this simply isn't the way to do it.

And if the labor movement folds....what message does that send ?

Way way way to complex when it doesn't need to be.

It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and if it did wouldn't solve it.

Atmospheric CO2 is a good thing.

At 100 PPM of CO2 the rate of photosynthesis would be stopped completely. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted.

 

[ding]

I wonder if you'll ever find one of those fossil fuel executives for a similar profile piece.

All of the major oil companies have begun "green washing" themselves. Just watch their commercials on TV. So what is it exactly that you believe those fossil fuel executives would say?