Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do as I say not as I do.
That's the attitude of most of these people.
Who are "these people" and how do you know what steps they do or don't take to help the environment.
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do as I say not as I do.
That's the attitude of most of these people.
Who are "these people" and how do you know what steps they do or don't take to help the environment.
I took it to be those referenced in the original post.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Marxism and socialism are very different things (and communism ala soviet Union as angled at me a few posts above). That you try and conflate them says everything about your views.
Whilst a term may be used by "marxists" (I struggle to see how anyone could be called that in the modern day and age) doesn't mean that it's a Marxist term. It is simply a term for capitalism gone too far.
Whilst free markets are good things there still needs to be a limit through state ownership of certain essential industries, proper regulation and taxation to prevent these things from happening.
We've tried the free market, trickle down approach for 50 years and all its done is turn millionaires into billionaires and the working class into the working poor whilst enabling the destruction of our planet.
Anyone who can look at the last 30 years but particularly the last 15 and say "I know what went wrong, not enough capitalism" is seriously delulu.
Don't disagree with that. There seems to be an assumption that if you say that a 'free market economy' is the right approach, you are 'devil take the hindmost'.
Economies based on enlightenment principles have demonstrated they've been by far the most effective at taking people out of poverty. Again, the data is overwhelming.
When you flood economies with cheap money, then, yes, people with assets with get richer, people without, will get relatively poorer. That was the result of massive central bank and government action taken apparently to avoid recessions. My argument is, free markets weren't allowed to work. This short-termism has robbed entire generations - inflated house prices, eroded pensions, mis-allocated capital on a massive scale. That's what happens when you give too much power to a small number of people operating in group think.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
But if you don't have state intervention in say the stock markets and just let it self regulate/allow it to work, you get insider dealing, price fixing, excessive risk taking, Ponzi schemes, and other practices that need to be legislated against by the state.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
So it can go too far in the wrong direction.
Nowhere did I say there shouldn't be regulation :-) Companies won't clean up the environment, left to their own initiative.
Democracies, with free speech and the rule of law, have come up with regulations over time, enacted at the state level. And that includes competitions and markets type interventions, to break up companies as they try to monopolise markets.
Trying to get the balance is difficult, which is why the free speech part is so important - you need competition in ideas to come to the right answers, over time. So my point is, that it can be shown that democratic, free market economies are the best at keeping an environment clean, will generate the most wealth to afford to and therefore most likely to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, I'm confident they will, not just because I'm an optimist but also because we've always managed to before.
Too much regulation is just a rentier's dream. Believe me, I have seen Private Equity salivating at every regulation - it's guaranteed money. They invest, they cream off. I've been involved in making market rules in financial markets - market participants immediately look to see how they can use those rules to their advantage, which ultimately just means creaming value off the market.
But there are some basic principles. Markets need to be allowed to set prices to balance supply and demand. They therefore need access to market information that is as accurate as possible and will manage risk where it isn't. The place for regulation is to allow trade to happen transparently, with fair access to those markets and to ensure the participants are qualified, managing risk appropriately and financially stable. If it's a consumer market, that the consumers are being treated fairly.
They didn't do that with the power market - the participants didn't have the capital and weren't qualified. Basic stuff and hence all the company failures.
But when states start to set prices or try to control supply or demand (including subsidies) it's completely counter-productive. Just look at how high our fuel bills are compared to countries that didn't 'cap' them for a recent example. Think deiselgate. Green levies being directed into technologies that may not be the best answer (AA batteries powering cars with solid state just around the corner, windmills, 200 years after the invention of the turbine, etc.).
China screws with most of these principles - it controls all market information, doesn't allow debate, directs capital expenditure, picks winners. And one day, maybe soon, we are going to find out just how big a problem that will cause.
Getting the balance is difficult and often the devil is in the detail, yes.
Free markets with regulations is fine with me if the regulations cap or forbid air and water pollution, habitat destruction, use of primary raw materials (vs recycled), over fishing, etc.
As for the markets providing accurate information, prices either of shares or products normally do not incorporate their environmental or social impact. Just measuring that impact and putting a price on it would be hard.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
But if you don't have state intervention in say the stock markets and just let it self regulate/allow it to work, you get insider dealing, price fixing, excessive risk taking, Ponzi schemes, and other practices that need to be legislated against by the state.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
So it can go too far in the wrong direction.
Nowhere did I say there shouldn't be regulation :-) Companies won't clean up the environment, left to their own initiative.
Democracies, with free speech and the rule of law, have come up with regulations over time, enacted at the state level. And that includes competitions and markets type interventions, to break up companies as they try to monopolise markets.
Trying to get the balance is difficult, which is why the free speech part is so important - you need competition in ideas to come to the right answers, over time. So my point is, that it can be shown that democratic, free market economies are the best at keeping an environment clean, will generate the most wealth to afford to and therefore most likely to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, I'm confident they will, not just because I'm an optimist but also because we've always managed to before.
Too much regulation is just a rentier's dream. Believe me, I have seen Private Equity salivating at every regulation - it's guaranteed money. They invest, they cream off. I've been involved in making market rules in financial markets - market participants immediately look to see how they can use those rules to their advantage, which ultimately just means creaming value off the market.
But there are some basic principles. Markets need to be allowed to set prices to balance supply and demand. They therefore need access to market information that is as accurate as possible and will manage risk where it isn't. The place for regulation is to allow trade to happen transparently, with fair access to those markets and to ensure the participants are qualified, managing risk appropriately and financially stable. If it's a consumer market, that the consumers are being treated fairly.
They didn't do that with the power market - the participants didn't have the capital and weren't qualified. Basic stuff and hence all the company failures.
But when states start to set prices or try to control supply or demand (including subsidies) it's completely counter-productive. Just look at how high our fuel bills are compared to countries that didn't 'cap' them for a recent example. Think deiselgate. Green levies being directed into technologies that may not be the best answer (AA batteries powering cars with solid state just around the corner, windmills, 200 years after the invention of the turbine, etc.).
China screws with most of these principles - it controls all market information, doesn't allow debate, directs capital expenditure, picks winners. And one day, maybe soon, we are going to find out just how big a problem that will cause.
Getting the balance is difficult and often the devil is in the detail, yes.
Free markets with regulations is fine with me if the regulations cap or forbid air and water pollution, habitat destruction, use of primary raw materials (vs recycled), over fishing, etc.
As for the markets providing accurate information, prices either of shares or products normally do not incorporate their environmental or social impact. Just measuring that impact and putting a price on it would be hard.
Agree that this is the problem we have to solve and it's non-trivial.
Ultimately it would be solved by progressive shortages driving innovation and investment. What we're trying to do is pick winners and direct capital to those winners. I don't believe that's the right answer. It's giving us wind turbines as a 'sustainable' answer. The engineering trade-offs are huge to cope with the fact that they energy output is proportional to the cube of the windspeed; the level of redundancy in grids required is a massive waste of resources. I've not seen a genuine total cost of ownership model that proves that they're sustainable.
Central planning has also driven investment into 'AA battery grids' to power cars. Last I saw they needed at least 60,000 miles to be more sustainable than diesels; that was before people worked out how fragile the grids are, which suggests many won't last that long. Add in the damage they are doing to road surfaces, the brake emissions off-setting the local emissions benefits.
Nuclear has to be the short to medium term answer while we work on things like solid state batteries, fusion, high efficiency solar, etc. All the time central planners drive investment one way, it starves capital from other projects. We use something like less than 1% of the sun's daily energy in a single year, so the problem will be solved but picking winners isn't the answer. Particularly when those doing the picking tend to be arts and social sciences grads.
One thing is for sure, forcing shortages of energy and forcing up prices through arbitrary deadlines will make the poor very much poorer.
After a while, you might wish you'd stayed in the pub. You should read Grace Blakely if you want to understand the required approach on this forum
You'd learn a lot if you read Grace Blakely.
I just read her Wiki appraisal, so learnt something. I had never heard of her.
I dont agree with everything she says and supports but shes highly qualified very well researched and data heavy and in terms of radical social, political and economic change in the UK she has a lot of good ideas that would improve the lives of the majority of people.
I've seen climate change deniers reference David Bellamy, who argued that attempts to combat global warming are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Almost all climate scientists today believe burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming though, and whilst he didn't think governments should be focused on cutting Co2 emissions, he never wavered on his concerns about the destruction of rainforests and overfishing of the oceans in terms of the environmental effects, for which humans are responsible
By doing so, he was effectively arguing for us to take action to prevent further degradation of the earths main carbon sinks, to reduce or eliminate fish and meat consumption as that's the prime cause of overfishing and deforestation.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
But if you don't have state intervention in say the stock markets and just let it self regulate/allow it to work, you get insider dealing, price fixing, excessive risk taking, Ponzi schemes, and other practices that need to be legislated against by the state.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
So it can go too far in the wrong direction.
Nowhere did I say there shouldn't be regulation :-) Companies won't clean up the environment, left to their own initiative.
Democracies, with free speech and the rule of law, have come up with regulations over time, enacted at the state level. And that includes competitions and markets type interventions, to break up companies as they try to monopolise markets.
Trying to get the balance is difficult, which is why the free speech part is so important - you need competition in ideas to come to the right answers, over time. So my point is, that it can be shown that democratic, free market economies are the best at keeping an environment clean, will generate the most wealth to afford to and therefore most likely to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, I'm confident they will, not just because I'm an optimist but also because we've always managed to before.
Too much regulation is just a rentier's dream. Believe me, I have seen Private Equity salivating at every regulation - it's guaranteed money. They invest, they cream off. I've been involved in making market rules in financial markets - market participants immediately look to see how they can use those rules to their advantage, which ultimately just means creaming value off the market.
But there are some basic principles. Markets need to be allowed to set prices to balance supply and demand. They therefore need access to market information that is as accurate as possible and will manage risk where it isn't. The place for regulation is to allow trade to happen transparently, with fair access to those markets and to ensure the participants are qualified, managing risk appropriately and financially stable. If it's a consumer market, that the consumers are being treated fairly.
They didn't do that with the power market - the participants didn't have the capital and weren't qualified. Basic stuff and hence all the company failures.
But when states start to set prices or try to control supply or demand (including subsidies) it's completely counter-productive. Just look at how high our fuel bills are compared to countries that didn't 'cap' them for a recent example. Think deiselgate. Green levies being directed into technologies that may not be the best answer (AA batteries powering cars with solid state just around the corner, windmills, 200 years after the invention of the turbine, etc.).
China screws with most of these principles - it controls all market information, doesn't allow debate, directs capital expenditure, picks winners. And one day, maybe soon, we are going to find out just how big a problem that will cause.
Getting the balance is difficult and often the devil is in the detail, yes.
Free markets with regulations is fine with me if the regulations cap or forbid air and water pollution, habitat destruction, use of primary raw materials (vs recycled), over fishing, etc.
As for the markets providing accurate information, prices either of shares or products normally do not incorporate their environmental or social impact. Just measuring that impact and putting a price on it would be hard.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
But if you don't have state intervention in say the stock markets and just let it self regulate/allow it to work, you get insider dealing, price fixing, excessive risk taking, Ponzi schemes, and other practices that need to be legislated against by the state.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
So it can go too far in the wrong direction.
Nowhere did I say there shouldn't be regulation :-) Companies won't clean up the environment, left to their own initiative.
Democracies, with free speech and the rule of law, have come up with regulations over time, enacted at the state level. And that includes competitions and markets type interventions, to break up companies as they try to monopolise markets.
Trying to get the balance is difficult, which is why the free speech part is so important - you need competition in ideas to come to the right answers, over time. So my point is, that it can be shown that democratic, free market economies are the best at keeping an environment clean, will generate the most wealth to afford to and therefore most likely to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, I'm confident they will, not just because I'm an optimist but also because we've always managed to before.
Too much regulation is just a rentier's dream. Believe me, I have seen Private Equity salivating at every regulation - it's guaranteed money. They invest, they cream off. I've been involved in making market rules in financial markets - market participants immediately look to see how they can use those rules to their advantage, which ultimately just means creaming value off the market.
But there are some basic principles. Markets need to be allowed to set prices to balance supply and demand. They therefore need access to market information that is as accurate as possible and will manage risk where it isn't. The place for regulation is to allow trade to happen transparently, with fair access to those markets and to ensure the participants are qualified, managing risk appropriately and financially stable. If it's a consumer market, that the consumers are being treated fairly.
They didn't do that with the power market - the participants didn't have the capital and weren't qualified. Basic stuff and hence all the company failures.
But when states start to set prices or try to control supply or demand (including subsidies) it's completely counter-productive. Just look at how high our fuel bills are compared to countries that didn't 'cap' them for a recent example. Think deiselgate. Green levies being directed into technologies that may not be the best answer (AA batteries powering cars with solid state just around the corner, windmills, 200 years after the invention of the turbine, etc.).
China screws with most of these principles - it controls all market information, doesn't allow debate, directs capital expenditure, picks winners. And one day, maybe soon, we are going to find out just how big a problem that will cause.
Getting the balance is difficult and often the devil is in the detail, yes.
Free markets with regulations is fine with me if the regulations cap or forbid air and water pollution, habitat destruction, use of primary raw materials (vs recycled), over fishing, etc.
As for the markets providing accurate information, prices either of shares or products normally do not incorporate their environmental or social impact. Just measuring that impact and putting a price on it would be hard.
Agree that this is the problem we have to solve and it's non-trivial.
Ultimately it would be solved by progressive shortages driving innovation and investment. What we're trying to do is pick winners and direct capital to those winners. I don't believe that's the right answer. It's giving us wind turbines as a 'sustainable' answer. The engineering trade-offs are huge to cope with the fact that they energy output is proportional to the cube of the windspeed; the level of redundancy in grids required is a massive waste of resources. I've not seen a genuine total cost of ownership model that proves that they're sustainable.
Central planning has also driven investment into 'AA battery grids' to power cars. Last I saw they needed at least 60,000 miles to be more sustainable than diesels; that was before people worked out how fragile the grids are, which suggests many won't last that long. Add in the damage they are doing to road surfaces, the brake emissions off-setting the local emissions benefits.
Nuclear has to be the short to medium term answer while we work on things like solid state batteries, fusion, high efficiency solar, etc. All the time central planners drive investment one way, it starves capital from other projects. We use something like less than 1% of the sun's daily energy in a single year, so the problem will be solved but picking winners isn't the answer. Particularly when those doing the picking tend to be arts and social sciences grads.
One thing is for sure, forcing shortages of energy and forcing up prices through arbitrary deadlines will make the poor very much poorer.
On the market allocating capital efficiently, you also need to be careful and have state intervention, otherwise billions of dollars will be allocated to GenAI, luxury brands, etc. while schools and hospitals struggle financially.
I do love the 'free thinkers' that argue what the global economy needs to help the climate is more capitalism
Least we'll have fantastic GDP on the few countries left that are habitable in a few generations time.
It's an, um, interesting theory but I'm struggling to get past the idea that our energy bills would be cheaper if we'd followed our peers in not putting in place a cap on the unit price. Imagine what those greedy bastards would do to us if they had a totally free hand!
It's probably just me not being open minded enough though.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Marxism and socialism are very different things (and communism ala soviet Union as angled at me a few posts above). That you try and conflate them says everything about your views.
Whilst a term may be used by "marxists" (I struggle to see how anyone could be called that in the modern day and age) doesn't mean that it's a Marxist term. It is simply a term for capitalism gone too far.
Whilst free markets are good things there still needs to be a limit through state ownership of certain essential industries, proper regulation and taxation to prevent these things from happening.
We've tried the free market, trickle down approach for 50 years and all its done is turn millionaires into billionaires and the working class into the working poor whilst enabling the destruction of our planet.
Anyone who can look at the last 30 years but particularly the last 15 and say "I know what went wrong, not enough capitalism" is seriously delulu.
Don't disagree with that. There seems to be an assumption that if you say that a 'free market economy' is the right approach, you are 'devil take the hindmost'.
Economies based on enlightenment principles have demonstrated they've been by far the most effective at taking people out of poverty. Again, the data is overwhelming.
When you flood economies with cheap money, then, yes, people with assets with get richer, people without, will get relatively poorer. That was the result of massive central bank and government action taken apparently to avoid recessions. My argument is, free markets weren't allowed to work. This short-termism has robbed entire generations - inflated house prices, eroded pensions, mis-allocated capital on a massive scale. That's what happens when you give too much power to a small number of people operating in group think.
Oh, go on then... I'll be the one to ask you to please unpack the often recently referred to - in this thread - concept of "economies based on Enlightenment principles".
I'll admit the phrase has piqued my interest
Of course, please then bring it back to how this then logically (I assume) is the/a key way to tackle the climate emergency we face....
It’s all too late. Governments won’t ever do enough because in the short term it’s going to cost money and governments are at the end of the day only interested in the next general election. Leaving it to the free markets….. don’t make me laugh
It’s all too late. Governments won’t ever do enough because in the short term it’s going to cost money and governments are at the end of the day only interested in the next general election. Leaving it to the free markets….. don’t make me laugh
It's why short term democracy is failed system, long term progress doesn't win votes and long term power leads to tyranny.
It’s all too late. Governments won’t ever do enough because in the short term it’s going to cost money and governments are at the end of the day only interested in the next general election. Leaving it to the free markets….. don’t make me laugh
It's why short term democracy is failed system, long term progress doesn't win votes and long term power leads to tyranny.
Sadly, people, in general, are just shit.
I agree. The problem is with people first, the ever increasing numbers of us depleting the Earth's finite resources further, with what we eat and our other lifestyle choices the main driver for rising average global surface temperatures.
We'll be having the next COP jolly soon with delegates flying half way round the world, fine dining, with so called 'sustainable' fish and meat on the menus no doubt, probably saying last year was the highest ever for Co2 emissions and warning that the hour is late, but that we still have time to avoid exceeding tipping points.
Efforts to combat climate change can be put back whilst world economies deal with more pressing current issues, but those tipping points can't be!!!!
Who'd be prepared to say if they'd already been exceeded though. Wouldn't that give governments license to abandon efforts to control it, although some give the impression they already have and attend these things purely as a window dressing exercise.
The gas and oil lobby is still the most powerful pressure group in the world and it’s where the mega mega rich have their money. There won’t be significant movement away from those two until the mega mega rich are able to shift their investment into green which will be slow and too little too late. Governments are not in any position to speed that up apart from tinkering around the edges which is what we have. I genuinely believe that until we see a climate catastrophe in the USA where thousands lose their lives we won’t see any significant political change. Sadly the world needs a shock to wake us up to what’s coming down the line.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Don't think thats remotely fair. You have no idea what changes people are making in their lives. There have been numerous examples on this thread of people explaining how they have reduced flights and reduced the amount they drive etc. I have taken the train for holidays for a while including the ski train to the alps. I take public transport much more than i drive even when slightly less convenient and more expensive. Just some of the numerous changes I make in my life.
As for your second point there is something called supply chain sustainability which is designed to account for just this and prevent that from happening. Its largely adopted worldwide by regulators and is picking up in industry and government standards.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
As my decisions and actions contribute to a problem, I'm making changes which inconvenience me to take more personal responsibility for them. I know I can't save the planet, but when it's too late, which it will be, at least I can look my nephews and nieces in the face and say I did my bit, not say I was waiting for others to do theirs, or offer up any other lame excuse laying the blame elsewhere.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
As my decisions and actions contribute to a problem, I'm making changes which inconvenience me to take more personal responsibility for them. I know I can't save the planet, but when it's too late, which it will be, at least I can look my nephews and nieces in the face and say I did my bit, not say I was waiting for others to do theirs, or offer up any other lame excuse laying the blame elsewhere.
The personal changes, in order of priority need to be: 1. Accept there is an emergency 2. Vote for policies that address the emergency. 3. Gradually change your lifestyle to address the emergency. 4. Advocate (where reasonable and safe) for others to change.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
As my decisions and actions contribute to a problem, I'm making changes which inconvenience me to take more personal responsibility for them. I know I can't save the planet, but when it's too late, which it will be, at least I can look my nephews and nieces in the face and say I did my bit, not say I was waiting for others to do theirs, or offer up any other lame excuse laying the blame elsewhere.
The personal changes, in order of priority need to be: 1. Accept there is an emergency 2. Vote for policies that address the emergency. 3. Gradually change your lifestyle to address the emergency. 4. Advocate (where reasonable and safe) for others to change.
I'd swap 2 and 3 round. Policies are offered on the basis of popular appeal,a good indicator of which is patterns of consumption. 3 & 4 as you have them are the ones I find most challenging.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
This is pretty much where I am. I feel that although the mantra of “every little helps” can’t be dismissed, it’s in the great scheme of things irrelevant. I still rage at supermarket packaging. Again, small but slow improvements can’t be ignored but I get the feeling it’s generally more companies virtue signalling rather than some sort of drive to eradicate the tons of package waste. This simply must be led top down. It needs government intervention yet where is it ? Straws and plastic bags isn’t enough. I fly probably twice a year and I won’t change that because the options for me and my family to do something different simply aren’t there. I recycle what’s required of me but what else can I do. Change simply must be led top down. Force packaging to be green. Put a (?) £20 levy on each air ticket. Drive forward subsidies for insulation and home improvement to reduce energy consumption. The list is virtually endless. I am completely convinced that the world is fucked. This won’t impact me I doubt I’m 68 but I fear for my grandchildren’s future.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
I am and I suspect I'm not alone on here.
I rarely get flights, unless essential. I try to work from home whenever I can and when I can't I use public transport. I only drive when necessary. Not sure how driven I am by climate change or cost but hey if I am being priced into saving the planet, a win is a win.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
This is pretty much where I am. I feel that although the mantra of “every little helps” can’t be dismissed, it’s in the great scheme of things irrelevant. I still rage at supermarket packaging. Again, small but slow improvements can’t be ignored but I get the feeling it’s generally more companies virtue signalling rather than some sort of drive to eradicate the tons of package waste. This simply must be led top down. It needs government intervention yet where is it ? Straws and plastic bags isn’t enough. I fly probably twice a year and I won’t change that because the options for me and my family to do something different simply aren’t there. I recycle what’s required of me but what else can I do. Change simply must be led top down. Force packaging to be green. Put a (?) £20 levy on each air ticket. Drive forward subsidies for insulation and home improvement to reduce energy consumption. The list is virtually endless. I am completely convinced that the world is fucked. This won’t impact me I doubt I’m 68 but I fear for my grandchildren’s future.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
As my decisions and actions contribute to a problem, I'm making changes which inconvenience me to take more personal responsibility for them. I know I can't save the planet, but when it's too late, which it will be, at least I can look my nephews and nieces in the face and say I did my bit, not say I was waiting for others to do theirs, or offer up any other lame excuse laying the blame elsewhere.
The personal changes, in order of priority need to be: 1. Accept there is an emergency 2. Vote for policies that address the emergency. 3. Gradually change your lifestyle to address the emergency. 4. Advocate (where reasonable and safe) for others to change.
I'd swap 2 and 3 round. Policies are offered on the basis of popular appeal,a good indicator of which is patterns of consumption. 3 & 4 as you have them are the ones I find most challenging.
I see what you mean about 2/3.
My reasoning is that I rather someone voted for e.g. banning plastic water bottles (and use them until banned), than not use them but not vote/vote against a ban.
Despite the UK experiencing its coolest summer since 2015, temperatures were above average across much of Europe, according to the EU's climate monitoring service, Copernicus.
Increasing air passenger duty would be an excellent way to raise revenue at a time it is badly needed, without hurting the poorest in society.
A big problem is that there are many people who are being influenced by social media misinformation, put out by those who have a vested interest in the industries that cause the most damage to the planet. I often see phrases like 'climate scam' and claims that cloud seeding' is taking place.
We need all politicians to make looking after our planet a priority, instead of using it to score political points.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
I'll excuse the pun ;-)
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.
Comments
Economies based on enlightenment principles have demonstrated they've been by far the most effective at taking people out of poverty. Again, the data is overwhelming.
When you flood economies with cheap money, then, yes, people with assets with get richer, people without, will get relatively poorer. That was the result of massive central bank and government action taken apparently to avoid recessions. My argument is, free markets weren't allowed to work. This short-termism has robbed entire generations - inflated house prices, eroded pensions, mis-allocated capital on a massive scale. That's what happens when you give too much power to a small number of people operating in group think.
Ultimately it would be solved by progressive shortages driving innovation and investment. What we're trying to do is pick winners and direct capital to those winners. I don't believe that's the right answer. It's giving us wind turbines as a 'sustainable' answer. The engineering trade-offs are huge to cope with the fact that they energy output is proportional to the cube of the windspeed; the level of redundancy in grids required is a massive waste of resources. I've not seen a genuine total cost of ownership model that proves that they're sustainable.
Central planning has also driven investment into 'AA battery grids' to power cars. Last I saw they needed at least 60,000 miles to be more sustainable than diesels; that was before people worked out how fragile the grids are, which suggests many won't last that long. Add in the damage they are doing to road surfaces, the brake emissions off-setting the local emissions benefits.
Nuclear has to be the short to medium term answer while we work on things like solid state batteries, fusion, high efficiency solar, etc. All the time central planners drive investment one way, it starves capital from other projects. We use something like less than 1% of the sun's daily energy in a single year, so the problem will be solved but picking winners isn't the answer. Particularly when those doing the picking tend to be arts and social sciences grads.
One thing is for sure, forcing shortages of energy and forcing up prices through arbitrary deadlines will make the poor very much poorer.
Almost all climate scientists today believe burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming though, and whilst he didn't think governments should be focused on cutting Co2 emissions, he never wavered on his concerns about the destruction of rainforests and overfishing of the oceans in terms of the environmental effects, for which humans are responsible
By doing so, he was effectively arguing for us to take action to prevent further degradation of the earths main carbon sinks, to reduce or eliminate fish and meat consumption as that's the prime cause of overfishing and deforestation.
Least we'll have fantastic GDP on the few countries left that are habitable in a few generations time.
It's probably just me not being open minded enough though.
I'll admit the phrase has piqued my interest
Of course, please then bring it back to how this then logically (I assume) is the/a key way to tackle the climate emergency we face....
Much obliged
Sadly, people, in general, are just shit.
We'll be having the next COP jolly soon with delegates flying half way round the world, fine dining, with so called 'sustainable' fish and meat on the menus no doubt, probably saying last year was the highest ever for Co2 emissions and warning that the hour is late, but that we still have time to avoid exceeding tipping points.
Efforts to combat climate change can be put back whilst world economies deal with more pressing current issues, but those tipping points can't be!!!!
Who'd be prepared to say if they'd already been exceeded though. Wouldn't that give governments license to abandon efforts to control it, although some give the impression they already have and attend these things purely as a window dressing exercise.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
As for your second point there is something called supply chain sustainability which is designed to account for just this and prevent that from happening. Its largely adopted worldwide by regulators and is picking up in industry and government standards.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
1. Accept there is an emergency
2. Vote for policies that address the emergency.
3. Gradually change your lifestyle to address the emergency.
4. Advocate (where reasonable and safe) for others to change.
My reasoning is that I rather someone voted for e.g. banning plastic water bottles (and use them until banned), than not use them but not vote/vote against a ban.
Despite the UK experiencing its coolest summer since 2015, temperatures were above average across much of Europe, according to the EU's climate monitoring service, Copernicus.
Increasing air passenger duty would be an excellent way to raise revenue at a time it is badly needed, without hurting the poorest in society.
A big problem is that there are many people who are being influenced by social media misinformation, put out by those who have a vested interest in the industries that cause the most damage to the planet. I often see phrases like 'climate scam' and claims that cloud seeding' is taking place.
We need all politicians to make looking after our planet a priority, instead of using it to score political points.