To look at @billybutcher 's graphs another way…
Within the “Goldilocks zone” that our planet orbits in there is also a very clear correlation of the rise human civilisation & expansion to the stable atmospheric CO2 levels shown in the graphs.
The naysayers who use higher historic CO2 levels as a stick to beat the modern data simply don’t grasp how narrow the band of existence is. With deviate from it at our peril.
Yes, I think that’s fairly solid research - but it only goes back a couple of hundred thousand years. Edit: Whereas we really need 100’s of millions of years.
Ooohhh, that debate is even worse than climate change.
Personally I have little against class D but I think the purists still don’t like it.
Quite, the very point I was making.
Do people not care about their children or grandchildren?
Some care a lot more about money. Often ones who already have more than they know what to do with. Making more and more money is I think like a competition for them. It’s all about the game, and not It’s consequences.
There’s what @hairbear says - but it is perhaps deeper than that - those that benefit and have the wealth think that wealth will insulate them and their progeny from the consequences.
Up to a point they are right, unfortunately.
Some are starting to see this as almost a religious thing, unable to grasp the data well, they are told conflicting facts by multiple sides. They likely do care, but it’s no longer clear.
Also it’s largely out of the hands of the “common man” or feels that way.
Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, these are people who refuse to believe that the hand of 'common ’ man should go unheard against the roar of big business.
The spirit of Emmeline Pankhurst lives.
Perhaps.
But they’re precisely the people who made protesting against climate change so unpopular.
Or you could say “kept this very important issue at the top of the news agenda”.
Well, you’re right as well.
But if you alienate people rather than draw them in, it’s a bit of a failure, isn’t it? I’m sure the Tories were polling to see how important an issue it was for people … with the result that Sunak has lost what interest he had in tackling it.
Stroudies shouting out for the rest of us.
Thinking about the tactics used recently by JSO, XR and the rest, it seems to me there’s a difference between them and how protest was done in the past.
The suffragettes were notable for their commitment and willingness to self-sacrifice (literally).
Greenpeace and the women of Greenham Common were likewise willing to sacrifice their own safety and/or comfort.
The new style of protest involves sacrifice, but usually it’s members of the public who are forced to make the sacrifice by the protesters!
I wonder if the change (if anyone agrees with me that there has been a change) is a result of the polarisation of politics we notice at the moment (I suppose exemplified in the US ): a politics of confrontation and exclusion, rather than one of persuasion and inclusion.
Are they really listening?
Gretta Thunberg and many others, including me, think not.
Will those in big business be gone when their children and grandchildren are paying the price for their greed?
I would say “alienate some people” - it is not all.
There is also the old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Sunak’s climate betrayal was a reaction to the perceived failure of Labour to take an incredibly safe Tory seat due to the media deciding that it was due to the expansion of the London ULEZ, instigated by a Labour mayor.
In reality a massive Tory majority was reduced to a few hundred votes in a constituency previously occupied by a person who , as London mayor, had introduced the first bit of the ULEZ & whose party had encouraged it’s expansion.
That’s one analysis, but it’s very narrow.
Why is there suspicion of the agenda of climate activists (and, indeed, of Sadiq Khan) - you saw how support changed in the UK - rather than a universal acceptance that each of us should be supporting the fight against climate change? The problem (for those of us concerned about climate change) is that when irresponsible activists causing widespread disruption to ordinary people’s lives, it’s much easier to think, “Oh, Sadiq Khan is only after the revenue, it’s not really about climate change.”
For the record I don’t have a…
…& I’m very much one of…
Sadly when you say…
…you are probably correct about some people.
Another “Oh FFS!” moment.
The nonsense/non-answer spouted by the unnamed Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson in the final paragraphs beggars belief.
Sorry, @Badger, I didn’t mean to suggest you were from the Dark Side! I know you are very concerned about the subject and have been for a long time. I was thinking more - and with sadness - about how politics is now more about confrontation and exclusion, rather than persuasion and inclusion.