• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Polling atm consistently shows clear majorities of the public already thought the government wasn't doing enough.

Localised pockets of discontent are the tail wagging the dog, if anything.
 
If Starmer was of the same view he’d be pinning his colours to the all things net-zero mast instead of hedging his bets (oil licences for e.g.).

I think we’re at a very delicate point, the greens, XR/JSO have had a very good run for their money, but the manifestation of green policies (the debacle of heat pumps, the true cost of EV’s etc) is not playing out very well. As seen with ULEZ expansion, rolling policies out to affect greater numbers brings home the true cost to those that might previously have been behind net zero. It’s very easy to be supportive of net zero when you don’t have to put your hand in your pocket.

If pockets of discontent are just insignificant kickbacks against an overwhelmingly supportive pro-net zero tide, then you should be a very happy person indeed. Starmer should be reading your room and pressing even harder to secure the votes of the majorities whose polls are telling him the government are not doing enough.

He must be playing safe to not alienate the tail-wagging minority in the interim, and presumably will go all-out net zero once the election is secured.

Something isn’t quite stacking up though and I’m not convinced that is likely to happen.
 
Starmer's not doing things because he thinks they're popular in a binary yes-no contest, he's doing stuff to target the demographics he needs to give Labour a broad electoral coalition at the next election. Nobody under 55 with a job and a family is going to vote Tory already, so he can alienate them safely under FPTP while also trying not to alienate the angry retirees who tend to make up the bulk of the climate change skeptics (including the anti-ULEZ protest groups - as much as they profess to be representative of "the working class" the profile pictures on facebook and the people who turn up to the marches are definitely on the greyer end of the hair spectrum, shall we say).

I mean all this is really just the inevitable of kicking the can down the road for so long, so now decarbonisation has to happen much faster and a lot of infrastructure which should have started being gradually overhauled back in the 90s/00s is now having to be done so in more disruptive ways. That was always going to be more inconvenient (and expensive) for the average person than if governments had actually started creating the regulatory incentives for green tech development back when we first knew for sure that climate change was coming.

Unfortunately "it's expensive" isn't a justification for allowing the world to end, and we're starting to see the stupidity of having pretended it was for such a long time.
 
Last edited:
Problem is it is expensive, and people are seeing and feeling it, on a very personal level. And the personal impact an individual can make to affecting climate change is, well, fuck all. Fighting selfishness is never easy but it’s particularly challenging when it affects the pocket and amplified by times being tough.

Going to be interesting to see how the public reacts to being given further direct, real-time, real-world financial punishment beatings on the basis it’s an investment in a future they won’t be any part of.

Not convinced that’s going to be a growing support base unfortunately.
 
If the government does all that it can in terms of onshore and offshore wind, nuclear, increase subsidies for heat pumps until prices fall considerably, infrastructure for ev's, infrastructure for public transport then it can easily carry a large percentage of the population with them.
Why it isn't compulsory to make housebuilders put solar panels and ev chargers onto new homes now is beyond me.
 
EpsomWolf said:
Problem is it is expensive, and people are seeing and feeling it, on a very personal level. And the personal impact an individual can make to affecting climate change is, well, fuck all. Fighting selfishness is never easy but it’s particularly challenging when it affects the pocket and amplified by times being tough.

Going to be interesting to see how the public reacts to being given further direct, real-time, real-world financial punishment beatings on the basis it’s an investment in a future they won’t be any part of.

Not convinced that’s going to be a growing support base unfortunately.
Click to expand...
That’s a very Tory response.
 
Not doing it is a false economy. Had we thoroughly engaged in moving towards net zero more robustly, we'd likely be seeing benefits, including infrastructure costs falling.
Developing decarbonisation technologies could be a massive golden opportunity for us economically were we to take advantage.
 
Tredman said:
That’s a very Tory response.
Click to expand...

And that’s a predictable response.

Putting our fingers in our ears and La-La-La-ing at the impact net zero is having on people and belittling any subsequent groundswell of resistance is the same sort of arrogance that fucked the remain campaign. Net zero seems to be very well supported by the better-off left leaning and the reluctance to accept who this is hurting the most in the immediate term is alarming. It doesn’t feel very left to cast those people aside. It’s frustrating when no one looks at their own-goals - that’s everything from ULEZ expansion, to pissing people off by blocking roads (a blind spot shooting-in-the-foot if ever there was one), the threats and use of the word “demands” from activists, the silencing-intended God-like use of phrases such as “allowing the end of the world”.

I’ve given up on anyone that would want to vote Tory and don’t waste any energy on them any more. Highlighting the cockups and own goals that lay in wait for Labour is much more important to me and I don’t think pointing them out is a Tory thing at all.
 
You're painting it as an either/or. Those self-same poor people you want to protect from ULEZ etc (assume you are including yourself in this in Epsom) are those who will be most affected by climate change. Methods should be in place to help them economically but that should not prevent climate change reduction being the single most important item any sensible government tackles.
 
It’s the timeframe urgency that has moved the goalposts and created the either/or - feathering in policies at a rate previously palatable to the less concerned with a more manageable financial impact on everyone is no longer an option. As any depressed teenager will tell you we’re all going to die in appalling circumstances unless the demands are met so there is clearly no alternative or healthy middle ground.

As for ULEZ expansion, I’m fortunate enough to have the means to be unaffected but have a great deal of empathy for those who are. It’s very noticeable around here the most angry are generally the least affected - the archetypal comfortably-off Tory voter with a modern car(s) and the means to stay ahead of the curve when necessary. The support seems to come from the very well-off left-leaners, (there are a few of them in the cycling club, very concerned, with BMW i7’s and several long haul holidays a year), and well, that’s about it. (Oh, mustn’t forget my neighbours with a Citroen Dyane and two kids in private school of course).

Anyway, it just feels a bit paradoxical that the left-leaners dismiss the financial impact on the poorer and the empathy, anecdotally at least, seem to come from the right.

Going to be very interesting to see where we go from here, but I suspect the wheels are coming off the green push a bit and can understand why that is a frightening prospect for some.
 
EpsomWolf said:
It’s the timeframe urgency that has moved the goalposts and created the either/or - feathering in policies at a rate previously palatable to the less concerned with a more manageable financial impact on everyone is no longer an option. As any depressed teenager will tell you we’re all going to die in appalling circumstances unless the demands are met so there is clearly no alternative or healthy middle ground.

As for ULEZ expansion, I’m fortunate enough to have the means to be unaffected but have a great deal of empathy for those who are. It’s very noticeable around here the most angry are generally the least affected - the archetypal comfortably-off Tory voter with a modern car(s) and the means to stay ahead of the curve when necessary. The support seems to come from the very well-off left-leaners, (there are a few of them in the cycling club, very concerned, with BMW i7’s and several long haul holidays a year), and well, that’s about it. (Oh, mustn’t forget my neighbours with a Citroen Dyane and two kids in private school of course).

Anyway, it just feels a bit paradoxical that the left-leaners dismiss the financial impact on the poorer and the empathy, anecdotally at least, seem to come from the right.

Going to be very interesting to see where we go from here, but I suspect the wheels are coming off the green push a bit and can understand why that is a frightening prospect for some.
Click to expand...
That's an empathy that's conspicuously lacking in that group when it comes to other issues that affect poor people. They're using it as convenient stick to beat the left with. I suspect the actual reason they rail against green policies is that they don't like governments telling them what they can and can't do, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue. Nothing can stand in the way of a rich indvidual's ability to do whatever the fuck they like.
Of course, if that attitude had prevailed in earlier decades, we'd never have had the Clean Air Act and London would still be a hideous smoggy hell hole. Sometimes governments just have to act for the greater good and people have to comply. Obviously there needs to be proper support to enable compliance.
 
SLA said:
That's an empathy that's conspicuously lacking in that group when it comes to other issues that affect poor people. They're using it as convenient stick to beat the left with. I suspect the actual reason they rail against green policies is that they don't like governments telling them what they can and can't do, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue. Nothing can stand in the way of a rich indvidual's ability to do whatever the fuck they like.
Of course, if that attitude had prevailed in earlier decades, we'd never have had the Clean Air Act and London would still be a hideous smoggy hell hole. Sometimes governments just have to act for the greater good and people have to comply. Obviously there needs to be proper support to enable compliance.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, there’s certainly no doubt underpinning much of this resistance are the emotions stirred by a perceived loss of control. Human behaviour is always going to be a challenge irrespective of the subject and the climate change demands, subsequent costs and loss of control are pushing an awful lot of buttons.

I think that’s fundamentally where my concerns are going forward. I suspect the green push and support has reached a peak as further punitive changes from here would be detrimental to the support, despite polls suggesting otherwise.

Either way, it’s a very divisive subject and the battle is not going to get any easier.
 
Well the Tories are going in on ULEZ being evil.
A Minister has claimed the 15 year old who was fatally stabbed yesterday is the product of all the concentration in London being on ULEZ.
So essentially scrap it and people won't be killed anymore. Its a staggering take.
 
EpsomWolf said:
Oh I agree, there’s certainly no doubt underpinning much of this resistance are the emotions stirred by a perceived loss of control. Human behaviour is always going to be a challenge irrespective of the subject and the climate change demands, subsequent costs and loss of control are pushing an awful lot of buttons.

I think that’s fundamentally where my concerns are going forward. I suspect the green push and support has reached a peak as further punitive changes from here would be detrimental to the support, despite polls suggesting otherwise.

Either way, it’s a very divisive subject and the battle is not going to get any easier.
Click to expand...
But governments, national or local, are elected to govern, and sometimes need to do unpopular things. Buttons will be pushed, and toys will be ejected from 4x4 prams but there is a pretty good consensus on what will happen - is already happening - if we don't make significant changes and fast. Implementing these policies may even cost a government an election, (though it might not), but there is a moral imperative that they get on and do it anyway.
 
EpsomWolf said:
It’s the timeframe urgency that has moved the goalposts and created the either/or - feathering in policies at a rate previously palatable to the less concerned with a more manageable financial impact on everyone is no longer an option. As any depressed teenager will tell you we’re all going to die in appalling circumstances unless the demands are met so there is clearly no alternative or healthy middle ground.

As for ULEZ expansion, I’m fortunate enough to have the means to be unaffected but have a great deal of empathy for those who are. It’s very noticeable around here the most angry are generally the least affected - the archetypal comfortably-off Tory voter with a modern car(s) and the means to stay ahead of the curve when necessary. The support seems to come from the very well-off left-leaners, (there are a few of them in the cycling club, very concerned, with BMW i7’s and several long haul holidays a year), and well, that’s about it. (Oh, mustn’t forget my neighbours with a Citroen Dyane and two kids in private school of course).

Anyway, it just feels a bit paradoxical that the left-leaners dismiss the financial impact on the poorer and the empathy, anecdotally at least, seem to come from the right.

Going to be very interesting to see where we go from here, but I suspect the wheels are coming off the green push a bit and can understand why that is a frightening prospect for some.
Click to expand...
I find this a frankly bizarre interpretation of recent history.

The left has been banging the climate change = economic injustice drum for decades, it's figures on the right that have downplayed it as both a scientific reality and an economic inevitability. Just because things are now actually moving along, imperfectly as they are, doesn't change how we got into this situation.

The truth has always been that doing nothing (or not enough) would be more expensive than doing what was needed, and it wasn't "the right" that was making that argument. Any pretenses towards it now are purely crass electoralism rather than anything sincerely empathetic for those who are being affected.
 
Only just noticed this thread. I think we are fucked. Seriously. We have already hit the point of no return and still are not doing much about it.
 
KentWolf said:
Only just noticed this thread. I think we are fucked. Seriously. We have already hit the point of no return and still are not doing much about it.
Click to expand...
Nope. We are actually doing loads, not enough clearly but we have not reached the point of no return.

Listened to a talk earlier this week which included simple actions we can all take - surprisingly one with the most affect was moving any money or loans you have away from banks which do not ensure their investments are placed in ethical / green companies.

Also learnt about block tarrifing / taxing - which seems a great idea. You essentially pay a lot more as you use more. So for example your first flights have little to no tax, but if you fly every week then you get whacked. Same for energy or water consumption the lower most common used amounts are low cost, the higher users get whacked. Seemed such a simple and fair way of doing it - no chance our current government do it because of their mates but they won’t be around forever.
 
Tredman said:
Nope. We are actually doing loads, not enough clearly but we have not reached the point of no return.

Listened to a talk earlier this week which included simple actions we can all take - surprisingly one with the most affect was moving any money or loans you have away from banks which do not ensure their investments are placed in ethical / green companies.

Also learnt about block tarrifing / taxing - which seems a great idea. You essentially pay a lot more as you use more. So for example your first flights have little to no tax, but if you fly every week then you get whacked. Same for energy or water consumption the lower most common used amounts are low cost, the higher users get whacked. Seemed such a simple and fair way of doing it - no chance our current government do it because of their mates but they won’t be around forever.
Click to expand...
I don't see that working at all.

So an accountant who adds nothing to the world gets away with paying no taxes on their energy but a manufacturer gets hammered.

You'd need the whole world to do it or our manufacturing economy would collapse almost overnight.
 
Johnny75 said:
I don't see that working at all.

So an accountant who adds nothing to the world gets away with paying no taxes on their energy but a manufacturer gets hammered.

You'd need the whole world to do it or our manufacturing economy would collapse almost overnight.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t aimed at C&I, it’s aimed at individual usage.
 
Tredman said:
Nope. We are actually doing loads, not enough clearly but we have not reached the point of no return.

Listened to a talk earlier this week which included simple actions we can all take - surprisingly one with the most affect was moving any money or loans you have away from banks which do not ensure their investments are placed in ethical / green companies.

Also learnt about block tarrifing / taxing - which seems a great idea. You essentially pay a lot more as you use more. So for example your first flights have little to no tax, but if you fly every week then you get whacked. Same for energy or water consumption the lower most common used amounts are low cost, the higher users get whacked. Seemed such a simple and fair way of doing it - no chance our current government do it because of their mates but they won’t be around forever.
Click to expand...
Dude, we are fucked. Global warming is here and now. We are totally fucked. Got sod all chance of keeping the temp below whatever we thought we might.
Just look at the glacier loss 'everywhere'. Seriously, there is no coming back from it. I don't even know why I bother arguing for that point. It ain't gonna change ought and nothing the human race will actually do is gonna stop it. Might as well nuke the Russians and Chinese and North Korea. That's how much hope we have.
Nah, it's slightly better than no hope. And I'm pretty sure the worse it could get would be us in the steam age. Nah. That won't happen. It will all be fine. We'll be growing olives in the next decade! Somerset Brie and British olives. A match made by god rolled by jesus and sealed shut with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top