Top politicians always amaze me with how they have the time and energy to do what they do - they must rely heavily on their staff and their ministers. So, he could make an appearance on a global stage, for one day perhaps, to set an example to other wavering countries. Not going himself sends a negative signal.
I don’t think he’s indispensable at home, for one day – or perhaps he thinks he is indispensable.
If its all about saving the planet why can’t it be a virtual conference? Hot air from numerous jet engines ferrying delegates around the world to talk more hot air when they meet. COP26 was a failure so what hope COP27 and counting?
Been around for a while now but at around 5-7% efficiency compared to 18-20% for a conventional PV panel they have a way to but all good news
Sadly, it looks like he’s dead right…
Rishi will go to the ball!
Most of you won’t get this but it is insane! My whole youth / teenagehood was based around waterskiing. We skied from October long weekend until Easter long weekend. My sister just sent this 
So it feels like -6.9c NOT normal, we should be skiing!!
The drive for change will need to come from the poeople. Gov ministers are not capable.
Told you.
Sky News: Rishi Sunak to attend COP27 - reversing decision to skip it to focus on economy.
Exactly what this topic is about…
Although not everybody’s cup of tea (including mine), Macron continues to put the UK leadership to shame…
In the light of this plus conversations elsewhere, this is relevant.
If the attempt is to use delay of emergency vehicles as an argument against protest, then it is really dangerous, because more or less any protest might delay traffic. It is, in effect, an argument for a police state (which is clearly on the way in the UK, which has already given police more or less unlimited power to stop any protest they don’t like).
Moreover, this would be a particularly stupid argument against climate protests, as the whole point of them is to save literally millions of lives. As I’ve already said in this thread: complaining about climate protesters is like complaining that the fire alarm woke you up.
Just traveling by car to any large event, or indeed on any busy road, seriously risks contributing to a traffic jam that might stop an emergency vehicle, and risks a collision that not only might itself kill or injure, but also, again, block the road. Not to mention the tens of thousands of deaths every year due to the air pollution you’re contributing to. And you’re doing it, often, just for fun.
In the last few days it has been estimated that ambulance delays due to UK government policy have been responsible for 30,000 deaths. 30,000! Any further comment would be superfluous.
Isn’t that what you kids call “whataboutery”?
I think the point is that a protest that puts lives at risk isn’t a very persuasive protest. And one which kills people is extremely toxic.
I don’t care what happened in Berlin, the really creepy thing here is this was picked out to be on the BBC. This is stealth softening up of the public by the powers that are steering Britain (those powers definitely not being the nominal government as the nominal government appear incapable of organising anything for quite some years now), to enable protests to be banned.
ALL protest can be presented as putting lives at risk Porridge - almost ALL marches, or any significantly sized public meeting, for example, ‘risks’ blocking roads. You are, as @KarenLot says, being sucked into arguing for a police state.
Deaths risked by other aspects of life are not ‘whataboutery’ in this discussion, because the implied context of criticism of the protesters is that an ambulance delayed by protest would not have been delayed without it - but in fact people die all the time because ambulances are delayed by other aspects of life that escape any criticism.
Whilst I agree in part there must be some rules, they must disperse to allow emergency vehicles through
Well, everything anyone ever does “can be presented as putting lives at risk”. That’s just more whataboutery.
I was trying to avoid discussing KarenLot’s complotisms, actually, because I heard* another rumour, that these anti-oil protesters are actually funded by Big Oil. The idea is that their protests are simultaneously ever more silly and ever more dangerous, and lead to a general consensus in the population that protest should be more rigorously controlled, which suits Big Oil, the Chinese, the Russians etc. admirably.
The point is not that protest causes inconvenience. As you say, that’s its raison d’etre. It’s more subtle than that.
Most people in the UK (and probably elsewhere: I didn’t check) are worried or very worried about climate change (Worries about climate change, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics) so, while it’s important that we continue to discuss it, (a) most people are convinced and (b) I suspect the other 26% aren’t going to be persuaded by protest.
So why are these people continuing to protest, if the argument has already been won? The only likely result of the current wave of protests is to antagonise people.
*Actually, I made that up, which means it is of equal validity to any other conspiracy theory.
FRANCE 24 English: ‘No more snow’: Climate change spells end for French Alps ski resort.
