End of the world...or unseasonable weather

Agree. We don't need Green New Deals to do that! We just need to get on with it. Every decade we are told the end is nigh and so far, we're still here, which makes each new OMG the end is nigh every so slightly less believable to those of us who have heard it for the 4th time already.

The Green New Deal (in terms of the environment anyway) whilst I agree is in itself unrealistic in timescales, something like that will have to happen. And tbf, the GND isn't just environmental but also about social equality/wealth distribution.

The one thing this suggestion has done is ignite the discussion in the US and here in the UK. It also has a lot of support with younger generations.

But introducing individual parts tactically as part of a wider strategy may get traction quicker at a political level. A recent parliamentary committee suggestion for all new substantial housing estates that they be heated by a collective ground source heat system would be a good example of this and a move towards 100% renewable energy approach.
 
Last edited:
And it doesn't help that the leader of the free world doesn't even believe climate change is happening!
Because it ISN'T happening.....not thru the fault of the human race anyhow,the scientists who have signed up to this global warming bullshit are the very ones that are getting grants from plenty of organisations££££££ add on the scientists that DIDN'T sign up but were just added for effect....... i suggest you wierdo scaredycat freaks get real and stop panicking....if you want to have a pointless thing to do to stop the main so called "pollution" then i suggest you manufacture some giant corks to bung up the volcanoes around the world.....i guarantee that we will be hit by a giant meterorite before the earth is destroyed by a few diesel cars chugging about.
 
Worth pointing out that China by far leads the world in spending on renewable energy. I believe they spend about three times as much as the US does. The problem is that their economy has been growing so fast that they've also had to keep building a bunch of coal plants to keep up - so the net effect in terms of pollution and carbon emissions is negative.

On the other side, the more I hear from her, the more I think that AOC is the Trump of the left. Yes, she's getting a lot of press and yes, she's at least starting some new conversations - and that's a laudable thing. But in terms of progress through the American political system, change is always incremental. For all Trump's bluster - his only real achievements of note are a relatively uncontroversial spending bill, a couple of Supreme Court Justice appointments and a reduction is some government regulatory oversight. None of his 'big' ideas (mostly on immigration) have gone anywhere because the US system of checks and balances stops anything particularly disruptive from happening politically.
Obamacare is absolutely nobody's idea of a good piece of healthcare legislation - but Obama at least recognized this incrementalism, and got something passed when he could that moved the needle in the direction of socialized medicine; and it's proven practically impossible for the Republicans to reverse that move (once someone's getting something, it's tough to take that away from them and still remain popular!). It will now be possible for the next Democrat President to move further towards something that actually functions well.

But this Green New Deal is far, far too progressive for mainstream political tastes and will get absolutely nowhere in Congress. The only thing it might do is cement AOC's position as the darling of the far left. But it really is about her, rather than about a piece of legislation that has a prayer. Even her own party leaders don't support large swathes of it.

Personally, I think the world is probably ****ed, because as a global population we're just not willing to make the sacrifices that are needed to reduce our climate impact, and we won't be until long after it's too late.
 
if anyone's got spare few minutes and you want to know your carbon footprint, try the below link
mine was 10.33 tonnes co2 which is below uk average

how can anyone actually answer these questions? Asking someone to compare their usage with the "average" is ridiculous when there are no criteria applied. For example:

MEAT: How much meat/dairy do you eat personally?
Above-average meat/dairy
Average meat/dairy
Below-average meat/dairy
Lacto-vegetarian
Vegan
 
I think it's a virtue-signalling app.

I'm not very virtuous, it seems. Should improve sometime.
 
how can anyone actually answer these questions? Asking someone to compare their usage with the "average" is ridiculous when there are no criteria applied. For example:

MEAT: How much meat/dairy do you eat personally?
Above-average meat/dairy
Average meat/dairy
Below-average meat/dairy
Lacto-vegetarian
Vegan
that's easy for me cos I don't eat any meat. I know it's not precise but you can get a rough idea on your carbon footprint
 
The Green New Deal (in terms of the environment anyway) whilst I agree is in itself unrealistic in timescales, something like that will have to happen. And tbf, the GND isn't just environmental but also about social equality/wealth distribution.

The one thing this suggestion has done is ignite the discussion in the US and here in the UK. It also has a lot of support with younger generations.

But introducing individual parts tactically as part of a wider strategy may get traction quicker at a political level. A recent parliamentary committee suggestion for all new substantial housing estates that they be heated by a collective ground source heat system would be a good example of this and a move towards 100% renewable energy approach.
The problem with it is that many people like me tried to read details out of genuine interest and curiosity, saw a whole lot of vague buzz words, left wing politics and unrealistic aspirations, rather than a meaningful way to ensure we look after our planet better. As a whole, it's laughably unachievable in the real world. I think we can do more by being a little more realistic, but that doesn't sell so well.

I did snigger at Dianne Feinstein for this ??? :

Just as well it was a left wing politician who did that, otherwise it would still be in the news cycle. At least SNL spoofed it.
 
The problem with it is that many people like me tried to read details out of genuine interest and curiosity, saw a whole lot of vague buzz words, left wing politics and unrealistic aspirations, rather than a meaningful way to ensure we look after our planet better. As a whole, it's laughably unachievable in the real world. I think we can do more by being a little more realistic, but that doesn't sell so well.

I did snigger at Dianne Feinstein for this ??? :

Just as well it was a left wing politician who did that, otherwise it would still be in the news cycle. At least SNL spoofed it.

But it has got you talking about the subject. More importantly it has got the US talking about the subject.
 
But it has got you talking about the subject. More importantly it has got the US talking about the subject.
Yeah, by mocking it's naivety. Always happy to talk about how we can realistically be better with our home. For instance, I'd love to be able to recycle more and make it so easy, even the biggest dullard can't help but do it.

This is an interesting thread:
 
Because it ISN'T happening.....not thru the fault of the human race anyhow,the scientists who have signed up to this global warming bullshit are the very ones that are getting grants from plenty of organisations££££££ add on the scientists that DIDN'T sign up but were just added for effect....... i suggest you wierdo scaredycat freaks get real and stop panicking....if you want to have a pointless thing to do to stop the main so called "pollution" then i suggest you manufacture some giant corks to bung up the volcanoes around the world.....i guarantee that we will be hit by a giant meterorite before the earth is destroyed by a few diesel cars chugging about.

3/10

Unconvincing for me.
 
Shall we go with say, Tim Berners Lee inventoried the World Wide Web, the Late Stephen Hawking or cassox and garibaldi??

Even their heroine Margaret Thatcher had absolutely no doubt global warming was happening. Shame their kids and grandchildren-and ours are going to have to live on the World they’re making with their ignorance
 
Yeah, by mocking it's naivety. Always happy to talk about how we can realistically be better with our home. For instance, I'd love to be able to recycle more and make it so easy, even the biggest dullard can't help but do it.

This is an interesting thread:

You might be as well as some others but many others in the US are discussing the subject with serious intent. It has brought the environment back into the forefront of US politics. And US politics often works on eventual consensus across the House and that can only happen with the discussion being started in earnest.

The link was interesting apart from the expected Trump supporter comments about the Democrat Party and its representatives. It does beg the question as why hasn't it been done though if it is as easy as he suggests. I don't buy the conspiracy theory reasoning that some claim on there as we are talking worldwide. The OTEC approach seems to have real possibilities based on a brief read.
 
Yeah, by mocking it's naivety. Always happy to talk about how we can realistically be better with our home. For instance, I'd love to be able to recycle more and make it so easy, even the biggest dullard can't help but do it.

Sure, but the US spent most of the 2014-16 mocking Donald Trump - in large part because of the dull simplicity of most of his campaign talking points (as well as his tiny hands).

BUILD THE WALL! WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT? MEXICO! LOCK HER UP!

What he realized, that the media did not, is that you don't need nuanced argument in the US to get elected, or even a deep understanding of the issues and practical solutions. You need to capture a national mood and a national sentiment, and run with it. And then as long as you continue to stoke that mood and sentiment.....it doesn't even really matter if you can't deliver on your agenda because you don't understand congress - your supporters will continue to love you.

AOC gets that better than any other Democrat. So she's busy stoking the anti-corporate left wing sentiment as fast as she possibly can. And it doesn't matter if it's naïve, or impractical - as long as it's from the heart and she is able to present herself as the standard bearer for the cause, she'll get media time, she'll get attention and she'll get love.

It's scary because I could see her go a long way in US politics, and fundamentally I think she's equally as big an idiot as Trump (albeit a nicer one).
 
You might be as well as some others but many others in the US are discussing the subject with serious intent. It has brought the environment back into the forefront of US politics. And US politics often works on eventual consensus across the House and that can only happen with the discussion being started in earnest.

The link was interesting apart from the expected Trump supporter comments about the Democrat Party and its representatives. It does beg the question as why hasn't it been done though if it is as easy as he suggests. I don't buy the conspiracy theory reasoning that some claim on there as we are talking worldwide. The OTEC approach seems to have real possibilities based on a brief read.
This is a good example of what people in the US think of climate change/global warming: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-voters/

More recent polls follow a similar vein. My feeling is it's a big city liberal priority, rather than a pan American priority.

My feeling on the link is there is a fairly lineated approach to how to make our environment better - renewables and electric cars = good, nuclear = bad. It limits our own ability to make best use of our own waste.

Sure, but the US spent most of the 2014-16 mocking Donald Trump - in large part because of the dull simplicity of most of his campaign talking points (as well as his tiny hands).

BUILD THE WALL! WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT? MEXICO! LOCK HER UP!

What he realized, that the media did not, is that you don't need nuanced argument in the US to get elected, or even a deep understanding of the issues and practical solutions. You need to capture a national mood and a national sentiment, and run with it. And then as long as you continue to stoke that mood and sentiment.....it doesn't even really matter if you can't deliver on your agenda because you don't understand congress - your supporters will continue to love you.

AOC gets that better than any other Democrat. So she's busy stoking the anti-corporate left wing sentiment as fast as she possibly can. And it doesn't matter if it's naïve, or impractical - as long as it's from the heart and she is able to present herself as the standard bearer for the cause, she'll get media time, she'll get attention and she'll get love.

It's scary because I could see her go a long way in US politics, and fundamentally I think she's equally as big an idiot as Trump (albeit a nicer one).
I'm a fan of AOC but the issue with her message is it only really sells to a certain demographic and like the UK with Corbyn, leaves a gaping maw in the centre left area who just won't vote for her without Trump there as the counter balance. She's no better than Uncle Bernie policy wise, just a whole lot hipper and a prettier face. But like Trump, dumb as a box of rocks at times. AOC is damn site more electable than someone like Kamala Harris though.

I did snigger at this though. Not long in the swamp and she could be at it.
 
I'm a fan of AOC but the issue with her message is it only really sells to a certain demographic and like the UK with Corbyn, leaves a gaping maw in the centre left area who just won't vote for her without Trump there as the counter balance. She's no better than Uncle Bernie policy wise, just a whole lot hipper and a prettier face. But like Trump, dumb as a box of rocks at times. AOC is damn site more electable than someone like Kamala Harris though.

There's truth in that - but with the current political climate in the US, and the dramatic polarization that's going on (much as it is in the UK, but with even less chance of a third party popping up to fill that chasm), it's very probable that when she is old enough to run, there will be a staunch conservative counterbalance on the other side.
Whilst you can certainly win a general election in the US from the centre - it's looking pretty damn tough to win a nomination there nowadays.

Course Trump is still only popular with a minority of the electorate and probably wouldn't have won without Hilary as a counter balance to him. If Uncle Joe hadn't sat out in 2016, I suspect we'd have President Biden right now, and a very different looking nation.
 
There's truth in that - but with the current political climate in the US, and the dramatic polarization that's going on (much as it is in the UK, but with even less chance of a third party popping up to fill that chasm), it's very probable that when she is old enough to run, there will be a staunch conservative counterbalance on the other side.
Whilst you can certainly win a general election in the US from the centre - it's looking pretty damn tough to win a nomination there nowadays.

Course Trump is still only popular with a minority of the electorate and probably wouldn't have won without Hilary as a counter balance to him. If Uncle Joe hadn't sat out in 2016, I suspect we'd have President Biden right now, and a very different looking nation.
In some respects, AOC got in 2 years too early - there is enough time for people to pick at her holes and her decisions. Trump got by because he was so new and gained so much momentum so quickly. I'm not sure on Biden, a good wing man...
 
In some respects, AOC got in 2 years too early - there is enough time for people to pick at her holes and her decisions. Trump got by because he was so new and gained so much momentum so quickly. I'm not sure on Biden, a good wing man...

Oh I don't think Biden will win in 2020 - he's both too centrist and too much of a Washington insider to win the Democratic nomination in the current climate (I suspect).

I just think that if he'd run in 2016, he would have won. Because although he's politically unexceptional, he's likable and unthreatening. More than half the US electorate don't like Trump, and didn't like him in November 2016.....but many of them (particularly in the crucial rust belt) voted for him anyway because Hilary!
 
The only nag I have with Biden is the proximity to Obama, and whether he just would have got drowned out by Trump eventually. It's a moot point anyway!
 
Back
Top Bottom