I imagine Extinction Rebellion don't protest in China because they'd end up in some sort of political prison or being deported. I also guess it's difficult to get there without flying. I'm not a supporter of Extinction Rebellion but it's fairly obvious that theyd protest in the country where they're based. China has large levels of CO2 production because it's become the world's manufacturer over the last 50 years. I imagine it is a better use of protest to get the customer to reduce their consumption of goods, rather than go head to head with an authoritarian government. I'm against dumping toxic chemicals in the oceans, but I'm going to get angry and remonstrate more if someone flytips on my land. I'm not polarised either way and have effectively profited from carbon production, but there are some things that the environmental groups an lobbies say, that make sense. Oil is finite and will run out eventually. It's better to have renewable energy sources in place before hand, especially as the world population isn't shrinking. I don't know enough about the effects of CO2 to have a strong opinion either way, but filling the water systems with plastic particles and herbicides isn't going to end well. I also see no benefit with chopping down rainforests and emitting too many manmade chemicals into our air. It's a balance, isn't it, of having a relatively luxurious life now, but leaving the world in a good state for our children/grandchildren.
I don’t see how this thread is still going tbh We have a no politics rule And even when it isn’t touching on politics it’s just entrenched views that won’t be changed
I have been wondering the same thing. I don't know about the UK or elsewhere, but in the US there is a lot of common ground between the otherwise divided political parties on this issue. I am a conservative Republican, but am the CEO of a hydrogen energy company. We produce carbon negative hydrogen for both mobility and power generation, replacing fossil fuel sources in both sectors. I have a lot of backing and support from the entire swath of the political spectrum. To keep it that way, and for many other reasons, my company is 100% privately funded and we will not entertain public funding of any sort. This keeps the politics and ideology out.
Yes of course we should. But how can we do so when our own country isn’t taking the issue seriously ourselves. If we sort ourselves out, we have the justification for preaching to others.
Professor: "Eye,eye, what do we 'ave 'ere then ?" Student: " Mud, Sir Patrick." please log in to view this image
From his demeanor, however, it always appeared to me that his life experience involved little or no stress. Always enjoyed his presentations.
On the subject of Sir Patrick Moore, I found this clip of one of his Sky at Night episodes where he interviewed a lunar scientist (Gilbert Fielder), who briefly taught Physics at my old school in Hull, which had it's own observatory in it's grounds. https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/the-sky-at-night--the-moon/zh6ymfr
The UK has less than 1% of CO2 whereas China has 27% I dont know that Exstinction Rebellion even demonstrate outside the Chinese embassy They certainly dont demonstrate in China
The choice is yours though Chazz, this thread is what it is. Just don't look if it bothers you, it's quite easy to do. I don't agree with the gambling thread but I manage to ignore that without any bother.
It helps, but what's the point of ignoring an existential crisis such as this? It's not going away any time soon, it's going to get way worse. Surely the ban was in place because the conversation has gotten personal previously? I haven't really seen that on this thread.
People like extinction rebellion serve a purpose. Their campaign is directly guaranteed to fail, but they raise awareness and get people talking about issues that are otherwise probably tomorrows problem.
Fair point, but I'm not sure that Chazz can complain when there's examples of his personal attacks all over the board.
The point of the no politics rule, is to avoid party politics and the arguments they generate, that then spread across numerous threads. There's plenty of threads that could be said to contain a political element, but as long as they stay on the the specific topic that the thread is about and don't degenerate into party politics, then we tend to leave them alone. There's comments on this thread that have gone beyond that and have been deleted, but in the main, it's been a fairly decent debate.
Absolutely agree on this. This is a very political thread. V interesting the way the Covid thread was shut down when the government were (correctly) coming under huge flak, yet this is allowed to flourish at a time when those of a right wing persuasion have spotted a possible escape clause over the Ulez/Uxbridge effect. It is a difficult job for mods, as politics impinges on everything. But this thread just allows politicised polarised views to be aired.
I think your issue stems from assuming a political slant to opinions on science, and I think that's where some of the 'blindness' arises on both sides. I don't see anyone making Party Political points on this thread, and mainstream parties share similar views anyway. It sounds more like an excuse to try to get the conversation shut down.
