Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

How many rightwingers does it take to change a light bulb?

SystemSystem Posts: 8,653 Staff Team
None if it is to change it to an energy-saving one, apparently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8229476.stm

This made me laugh no end:
the Daily Mail gave away 25,000 incandescent light bulbs in "outrage at further European intervention in British affairs".
Meanwhile the Telegraph is offering today tips on how to "beat the ban".


Nice that some people are keeping a sense of perspective and know the matters that are most crucial to the nation while defending us from the Evil EU Tyranny threating to destroy Our Way of Life bit by bit... :rolleyes: :D

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, according to this Spanish story, we need to be on our guard about how we dispose of energy-saving lightbulbs. There is a danger of mercury release. But I suppose that would only affect right-wingers, eh, Aladdin? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I should think will only affect right wingers since you need to break a considerable amount of lightbulbs at the same time, and then be careless during the cleanup, for any risk whatsoever to materialise.

    The risks have been truly exaggerated and a "Energy Saving Light Bulbs Give you Cancer" headline from the Daily Mail cannot be far behind. All nonsense, of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Off Topic: Can you get energy saving light bulbs that work with dimmer switches? All the ones I've tried go spazzy when set to low.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Off Topic: Can you get energy saving light bulbs that work with dimmer switches? All the ones I've tried go spazzy when set to low.

    Yes - I believe they are the halogen variety. If you look at the range in Home Base or wherever, the suitable ones will be marked as compatible with dimmer switches.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Yes - I believe they are the halogen variety. If you look at the range in Home Base or wherever, the suitable ones will be marked as compatible with dimmer switches.

    Ledge. Cheers!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is one of those stories that makes me want to reach for the off switch, truth be told. I've been using the energy-efficient lights for years and can't say I've experienced many problems with them. I've come across one or two crap lights, but otherwise, they're fine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Both the thread title and story further convince me that the biggest danger to the environment are environmentalists.

    The BBC story points out the big advantages (80% less electricity, £590 savings over 8-10 years), but the EU uses its normal sledgehammer attack on nuts. They could have spent a bit more time and money on persuading people off the benefits, perhaps slowly added duty onto the costs of the 100w bulbs - making the initial cost difference between them smaller (and if you want to look at one of the most succesful green measures look at how leaded petrol was phased out) . But they decided to go ahead and ban it - cue suprised reaction that people don't like being told what to do.

    And the title... :rolleyes: I've said it before, I'll say it again and I'll almost certainly say it in the future is that environmentalism's biggest problem is that it's become a right vs left issue (despite the early environmentalists such as Teddy Goldsmith and Stanley Johnson being on the right of the Tories and in Sept 1988 Thatcher being the first major world leader to acknowledge the dangers of climate change). Environmentalism would do a lot better if many of its adherents didn't seem to present it as an alternative means to overthrow capitalism and instead tried to present it as a apolotical issue (because frankly the evidence seems to suggest you can manage economic growth and the environment - indeed the succesful companies needed for growth need to minimise their costs by cutting waste - including energy).

    Still I suppose it's much more fun to glue your hands to a bank than to actually try and do something useful...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    And the title... :rolleyes: I've said it before, I'll say it again and I'll almost certainly say it in the future is that environmentalism's biggest problem is that it's become a right vs left issue (despite the early environmentalists such as Teddy Goldsmith and Stanley Johnson being on the right of the Tories and in Sept 1988 Thatcher being the first major world leader to acknowledge the dangers of climate change.
    And whose fault is that? Because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of deniers and flat-earthers when it comes to environmental issues are right wingers. Time after time, practically all of those moaning about recycling, or their 'right' to drive and fly everywhere at any time, or those (incredibly still) denying man-made global warming is a reality and a serious threat, are right wingers.

    Why should this be, I'll leave it to you to work out. I could suggest such traits as selfishiness, nationalism and inflexibility. These are not exclusive of right wing people of course, but all the same most of those seeing anything wrong with trying to save energy and resisting efforts to lead a greener life do appear to be right wingers. Indeed, the bigger the climate change fundamentalists, the more right wing they turn out to be (see the Bush administration).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I contend that the label of Climate Change Bullshitter be pinned to Aladdin. Or indeed anyone else with similar rhetoric.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I contend that the label of Climate Change Bullshitter be pinned to Aladdin. Or indeed anyone else with similar rhetoric.

    He isn't bullshitting though. Even a fucking blind man can see we need to change the way we do things, or we will destroy our planet.

    It's just the right who think that humans should be able to do whatever we want to the planet, leave it to our grandchildren to sort out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I contend that the label of Climate Change Bullshitter be pinned to Aladdin. Or indeed anyone else with similar rhetoric.
    What a surprise you should say that... :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flash

    Both the thread title and story further convince me that the biggest danger to the environment are environmentalists.

    Thats just hyperbolic rhetoric, and demonstrably wrong. The greatest threat to the environment, from the vast weight of peer reviewed scientific evidence, continues to be man made habitat loss and global warming.

    If you want to blame someone on the left in the environment stakes, you can blame the old USSR for having a truly disastrous environmental record, and for having a dodgy history of skewing ecological research for political purposes (e.g: the Lysenko affair).

    But are you seriously suggesting that the effect of people who have different views on the reach of markets and form of production, and their potential to turn people 'off-message' - is greater than the ability of hard-right market fundamentalists like Sarah Palin and the rest of the flat-earther crowd who have consistently spread lies and disinformation; backed by massive corporate interests, to pave the way for rapid expansion of fossil fuel harvesting and consumption?!

    It's just not a tenable point.
    Flash

    The BBC story points out the big advantages (80% less electricity, £590 savings over 8-10 years), but the EU uses its normal sledgehammer attack on nuts.

    The consensus building point is one I'd normally agree with, but there's an urgency to this that I think merits the action - in addition to which, other demonstrably harmful substances and environmentally unsound materials have been banned.

    Why not this?

    What the Mail have done is an inexcusable populist gesture made in utterly bad faith.

    Flash

    And the title... I've said it before, I'll say it again and I'll almost certainly say it in the future is that environmentalism's biggest problem is that it's become a right vs left issue (despite the early environmentalists such as Teddy Goldsmith and Stanley Johnson being on the right of the Tories and in Sept 1988 Thatcher being the first major world leader to acknowledge the dangers of climate change).

    But this appears to be a contradiction - because you've stated that it is 'enviromentalism's' problem that they have presumably framed this as a left-right issue; yet you go on to do exactly the same thing yourself by making the implicit claim that 'environmentalists' (en bloc) are a left wing group - and what is more, you've even given an example of an alternative environmental consciousness in Goldsmith which has been around for ages, which shows that isn't true.

    On the subject of Thatcher being the first world leader to recognise Global Warming, we can thank Sir Crispin Tickell (ex Foreign Secretary) for that - he was the one who went and produced the body of evidence which Thatcher then recognised as being quite overwhelming and spoke on it. Prior to that she had been an a priori skeptic because she couldn't get past seeing Reds under Beds everywhere.

    But lets put things in context - she did the same as Gordon Brown has done, which is to say one thing while doing another, to wit;
    Two days before she delivered the speech, the UK blocked a proposal at a conference in the Netherlands for a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005. On the day after the speech, the energy secretary, John Wakeham, told the House of Commons that he had been forced to abandon the government's insane plan to privatise nuclear power. It was Thatcher who insisted that "nothing can stop the great car economy" and her ministers who announced "the biggest roadbuilding programme since the Romans".

    All this is underpinned by the most absurd of all fallacies, stated in her 2002 book 'Statecraft';
    without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment

    Without human industrial growth over the past 200 years you would not be seeing the kind of habitat loss and climate change we are demonstrably seeing RIGHT NOW. Is she seriously suggesting that we need to do more of this in order to generate the 'more' to pay for the excesses of the 'more' - i.e: growth?

    The vast majority of circumstantial evidence around her dealings with big enterprise suggest this probably isn't the correct interpretation, but for sake of argument lets take a particularly sympathetic view of Mrs. Thatcher's statement.

    Growth will be taken to mean areas in which problems will be solved by market based solutions because competition will drive the growth of new economies to counter climate change, ie.: the field of demand. Problem is that in order to make this work you need strong governance on emissions to level the playing field so that the competitive advantage is worked towards proper ends - to funnel the energy of the drive for profit into the areas into which that energy is needed.

    But this involves the type of international governance that Thatcher and her ilk abhor; and there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that large multinationals will give the kind of credence to environmental issues as is needed to avert major disaster without such frameworks of governance.

    The fact of the matter is that we CANNOT expand our usage of resources the way we have done - and that means that we , all of us, might have to start looking at how we live generally, and do it fast.
    Flash

    Still I suppose it's much more fun to glue your hands to a bank than to actually try and do something useful...

    I'm in agreement on one point - my heart sank when I saw the banner at the front of the Climate Camp - 'Capitalism is Crisis' - because it is way too general and vague a message to put up as the banner headline. There is however, utterly no dispute that industrial production has driven habitat loss and climate change. The majority of expansion of which has come from rapid growth of unfettered free markets.

    Direct action is not the only thing the Climate Camp have been doing, but it's the only thing that people who judge things ideologically while lambasting the Climate Campers for being ideological, can see, because they don't engage beyond that.

    I have some reservations about Climate Camp, but they are out there doing a damn site more than most on the issue in terms of educating about sustainable living and practical methods for reducing waste.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Truly excellent post Martin.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And whose fault is that? Because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of deniers and flat-earthers when it comes to environmental issues are right wingers. Time after time, practically all of those moaning about recycling, or their 'right' to drive and fly everywhere at any time, or those (incredibly still) denying man-made global warming is a reality and a serious threat, are right wingers.

    But yet it's the left wingers who wanted to subsidise coal and are against nuclear power
    Why should this be, I'll leave it to you to work out. I could suggest such traits as selfishiness, nationalism and inflexibility. These are not exclusive of right wing people of course, but all the same most of those seeing anything wrong with trying to save energy and resisting efforts to lead a greener life do appear to be right wingers. Indeed, the bigger the climate change fundamentalists, the more right wing they turn out to be (see the Bush administration

    :lol: Don't let's pretend that the left are these nice-cuddly bunnies, there is a much selfishness, inflexibility and dogma if not more. I could equally add why are the left so scared of their ideas that they try and ban rather than persaude
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats just hyperbolic rhetoric, and demonstrably wrong. The greatest threat to the environment, from the vast weight of peer reviewed scientific evidence, continues to be man made habitat loss and global warming..

    Missing the point I see
    If you want to blame someone on the left in the environment stakes, you can blame the old USSR for having a truly disastrous environmental record, and for having a dodgy history of skewing ecological research for political purposes (e.g: the Lysenko affair).

    Well, yes, but then I'd be making a different argument
    But are you seriously suggesting that the effect of people who have different views on the reach of markets and form of production, and their potential to turn people 'off-message' - is greater than the ability of hard-right market fundamentalists like Sarah Palin and the rest of the flat-earther crowd who have consistently spread lies and disinformation; backed by massive corporate interests, to pave the way for rapid expansion of fossil fuel harvesting and consumption?!

    It's just not a tenable point.

    It is actually a real point. Many people feel disenfranchised by the environmental argument, they want to do something, but don't want it to cut into their standard of living (especially as they feel that they as an individual can't do anything). hardline environnmental antics actually just put people off - people do want to fly, they want to own cars, they want to light their houses. Being told they're some sort of cross between an imbecile and a sadist for doing so is not an effective way to put a message across and leads to it being ignored.

    The consensus building point is one I'd normally agree with, but there's an urgency to this that I think merits the action - in addition to which, other demonstrably harmful substances and environmentally unsound materials have been banned.

    Why not this?
    Because the risk is so long term and its impact is so marginal in the great scheme of things all it has done is put people's backs up and made them more hostile. As I say a gradual increase in duty would have phased out the lightbulbs and kept people with it.

    What the Mail have done is an inexcusable populist gesture made in utterly bad faith.

    Quite possibly, but if they'd taken a sensible approach the Mail wouldn't have bothered. If you have enemies you don't give them ammo and stand with a painted target on your chest

    But this appears to be a contradiction - because you've stated that it is 'enviromentalism's' problem that they have presumably framed this as a left-right issue; yet you go on to do exactly the same thing yourself by making the implicit claim that 'environmentalists' (en bloc) are a left wing group - and what is more, you've even given an example of an alternative environmental consciousness in Goldsmith which has been around for ages, which shows that isn't true.

    I assume you share my views on the utter repugnancy of the title and how self-defeating it is?
    On the subject of Thatcher being the first world leader to recognise Global Warming, we can thank Sir Crispin Tickell (ex Foreign Secretary) for that - he was the one who went and produced the body of evidence which Thatcher then recognised as being quite overwhelming and spoke on it. Prior to that she had been an a priori skeptic because she couldn't get past seeing Reds under Beds everywhere.

    So? Like every other PM she's uses advice from her Civil Servants and when presented with evidence she changes her mind. This actually seems like a good thing

    But lets put things in context - she did the same as Gordon Brown has done, which is to say one thing while doing another, to wit;



    All this is underpinned by the most absurd of all fallacies, stated in her 2002 book 'Statecraft';


    Without human industrial growth over the past 200 years you would not be seeing the kind of habitat loss and climate change we are demonstrably seeing RIGHT NOW. Is she seriously suggesting that we need to do more of this in order to generate the 'more' to pay for the excesses of the 'more' - i.e: growth?

    Without it you wouldn't have also seen the medical and technological advances we have also seen. Economic growth is demonstrably a good thing - unless you want to go back two hundred years? Now you're right that there come challenges with it, but the challenges we face are much, much less severe than whether you're going to survive the next cholera outbreak or whether the harvest will fail

    Growth will be taken to mean areas in which problems will be solved by market based solutions because competition will drive the growth of new economies to counter climate change, ie.: the field of demand. Problem is that in order to make this work you need strong governance on emissions to level the playing field so that the competitive advantage is worked towards proper ends - to funnel the energy of the drive for profit into the areas into which that energy is needed.

    Er? Not sure I follow you at all. Companies reduce their energy bills because it saves them money and means more profits.
    But this involves the type of international governance that Thatcher and her ilk abhor; and there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that large multinationals will give the kind of credence to environmental issues as is needed to avert major disaster without such frameworks of governance.

    Well, yes you need government - I assume as Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister she wasn't totally against their being such things as legislation and tax (I've already mentioned the tax on undleaded fuel
    The fact of the matter is that we CANNOT expand our usage of resources the way we have done - and that means that we , all of us, might have to start looking at how we live generally, and do it fast.

    Well yes, but my point is that you're doing it a counterproductive way by wanting us to move backwards. I want us to do it by technology and increasing standards of living
    I'm in agreement on one point - my heart sank when I saw the banner at the front of the Climate Camp - 'Capitalism is Crisis' - because it is way too general and vague a message to put up as the banner headline. There is however, utterly no dispute that industrial production has driven habitat loss and climate change. The majority of expansion of which has come from rapid growth of unfettered free markets.

    Except as you already have pointed out in Eastern Europe. And much of this habitat loss is by an increasing population caused by people living longer and more fulfilling results - a direct result of capitalism I would agree
    Direct action is not the only thing the Climate Camp have been doing, but it's the only thing that people who judge things ideologically while lambasting the Climate Campers for being ideological, can see, because they don't engage beyond that.

    It's all most of the public see - if you want to engage you can't wait for me to go them, they have to come to me. And I also find it ironic that you accuse me of being ideological when you are just as much
    I have some reservations about Climate Camp, but they are out there doing a damn site more than most on the issue in terms of educating about sustainable living and practical methods for reducing waste

    Ironically I took a few days to reply because I've been out looking at how we can move more properties to Code 4 (and beyond if we can do that), so perhaps people like me are doing more than you think
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol: Don't let's pretend that the left are these nice-cuddly bunnies, there is a much selfishness, inflexibility and dogma if not more. I could equally add why are the left so scared of their ideas that they try and ban rather than persaude
    You are entitled to that opinion of course, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of climate change deniers are right wingers, and there can be no doubt their motivations are greed and selfishness-driven.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    You are entitled to that opinion of course, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of climate change deniers are right wingers, and there can be no doubt their motivations are greed and selfishness-driven.

    It's also off no doubt that the majority of those who oppose realistic actions to combat climate change are left wing who's motivations are ideological and jealousy and who see in climate change a chance to control their fellow man
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's also off no doubt that the majority of those who oppose realistic actions to combat climate change are left wing who's motivations are ideological and jealousy and who see in climate change a chance to control their fellow man
    I don't see any masterplan of manipulation at all myself.

    It is true there is much opposition to nuclear power, for obvious reasons. I for one believe we are today capable of building nuclear power plants that are very safe, but many people still have reservations, especially regarding the handling and storage of nuclear waste.

    The coal issue is different. Back in the 70s and 80s global warming was not something most people were aware of. The closures of the pits were politically motivated and in the view of many, unnecessary.

    However today we are fully aware of the consequences of coal-fired power, so it is not hypocritical to oppose the opening of new plants.

    And it's certainly not about control; it's about common sense and respect for your fellow man. Nobody has a "right", for instance, to drive a highly inappropriate monster truck in an urban environment on a regular basis, when it is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Anyone who does so is a prick and a selfish tosser, and they should expect all the stick they get and then some.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Missing the point I see

    Not at all - the point you made originally, in the way you formulated it, was clearly wrong.
    It is actually a real point. Many people feel disenfranchised by the environmental argument, they want to do something, but don't want it to cut into their standard of living (especially as they feel that they as an individual can't do anything). hardline environnmental antics actually just put people off - people do want to fly, they want to own cars, they want to light their houses. Being told they're some sort of cross between an imbecile and a sadist for doing so is not an effective way to put a message across and leads to it being ignored.

    No one's being told that, and half the problem is that people do exactly as you've done and paint a gross caricature, with vague references to an overall 'message'. It's a straw man.

    I do agree with you that some people might feel disenfranchised by that sort of message, but I do not see anything in your argument to convince me of a concerted effort by 'environmentalists' to broadcast it. It is a give and take exercise - like I said before, the 'Capitalism' banner certainly wasn't something I felt to be immediately productive, but neither are caricatures of the type you present here.

    The point about standard of living is a key one though, particularly because, globally as well as locally, there are different conceptions of what it practically means. It' not about telling people they can't do things; it's about suggesting ways in which we might look at how we live, produce and consume, in such a way as to make it sustainable.
    Because the risk is so long term and its impact is so marginal in the great scheme of things all it has done is put people's backs up and made them more hostile. As I say a gradual increase in duty would have phased out the lightbulbs and kept people with it.

    Dead wrong - habitat loss and climate change are driving ecological and humanitarian catastrophes as we speak. According to the CIA, climate change will be a key factor in the conflicts of the next century - and they made this prediction based on evidence a long time ago.

    I'm sorry bud, but you really are wrong on this one - the problem is the areas in which such troubles are being felt is not in our immediate sphere - yet. It is also a matter of case law now in England, see the judgement on and defence of those people who took direct action against the Drax Coal Train.

    On the subject of EU legislation I am however inclined to agree with a portion of the argument, e.g. that the evidence is there to make a compelling case for this, and actually they should have spent much more time communicating the justification.
    I assume you share my views on the utter repugnancy of the title and how self-defeating it is?

    Insofar as it would have been better to keep it to the publication, i.e. "How many Mail readers..." yes.

    But Aladdin isn't wrong insofar as a large number of high profile climate change deniers and people who have, over the course of the last fifty years, consistently played down the importance of or downright opposed progressive policies on the environment locate themselves on the right of the political spectrum. Not my words, self definition.
    So? Like every other PM she's uses advice from her Civil Servants and when presented with evidence she changes her mind. This actually seems like a good thing

    Yes until she presided over a government that took virtually no substantive action in light of it - as her successors have also done.
    Without it you wouldn't have also seen the medical and technological advances we have also seen. Economic growth is demonstrably a good thing - unless you want to go back two hundred years? Now you're right that there come challenges with it, but the challenges we face are much, much less severe than whether you're going to survive the next cholera outbreak or whether the harvest will fail

    Anthony Giddens made this point a few years back - 'living after the end of nature' - where large scale risks from the natural world are replaced by the consequences of our circumventing them.

    Yes, economic growth (abstract) is a good thing insofar as it raises quality of life standard of living and overall happiness (which also means that it's not the master aim, but a means to an end).

    But by the very logic of this argument, we need to look at how that energy of competitive economic growth is channelled - which will mean changes in the spheres of production and consumption to make it sustainable.

    The problem is when certain types of economic growth are privileged. One of the main problems with the globalised world is that risks are now more than ever no respecter of borders or regions - ecologically damaging production in one sphere can and does demonstrably lead to ecological consequences in another sphere.

    The political question then becomes 'whither democracy' - because if we have a situation where populations are being affected most directly by things outside of their sphere of control, what then? Is that democracy?

    I'll take this on at the end but I believe this indicates just how inadequate our whole conception of political economy is at the moment for dealing with these challenges.
    Er? Not sure I follow you at all. Companies reduce their energy bills because it saves them money and means more profits.

    Standard market logic, yes, but as we have seen over the years there's a problem with having ecological concerns subordinate to the drive for profits - because markets being what they are, if a certain commodity or market rises in value to a particular degree, it's pursuit can become more profitable. Also, without a level playing field of transnational governance, it means that production and capital can keep playing the game of moving around to find the most acceptable areas for profit - often those with the least regard for environmental legislation or rights and benefits for workers.

    This is just the reality of global capital flows.

    Also, there's the problem of planning. Unfettered free markets, particularly in poorer producing areas of the world, continue to drive ever increasing speeds of global capital flows. Factories or centers of production open up, people move there, take jobs and base their whole lives around an area, and then it moves somewhere else. According to UNESCO and many others, this is one of the key factors driving the truly scary rates of global urban slum expansion.

    Again I am not saying markets are inherently evil, I am stating the quite obvious point that in order to ensure sustainable production, the playing field needs to be levelled. In a globalised world that means agreed and enforced frameworks of global governance.
    Well yes, but my point is that you're doing it a counterproductive way by wanting us to move backwards. I want us to do it by technology and increasing standards of living

    Where did I say that? The only thing is that we HAVE to reduce our carbons emissions, no ifs, no buts. We need to recycle more and use ecologically sustainable materials and production methods.

    Transitions of this type are not pain free, but may ease with time as technology progresses. But yes, it may mean that in the medium term we need to reduce our usage of non essential luxuries that are particularly polluting. In actual fact however, many of these changes may even have unexpected benefits.

    Reducing the amount of crap red meat in the British diet would help increase health - cycling on a couple of journeys where previously you would have taken the car can boost physical and mental well being.

    It's not the luddite apocalypse - it's a rational and measured response to a serious problem, that recognises and reaffirms our interdependence with the wider ecological system.
    Except as you already have pointed out in Eastern Europe. And much of this habitat loss is by an increasing population caused by people living longer and more fulfilling results

    Not the majority, not even close - deforestation in the Amazon basin has been driven by a number of factors, most pressing of which is intensive beef farming. In the arctic, as stated earlier, it is now a directly demonstrable fact that habitats are being eradicated by carbon emissions from the global north.
    It's all most of the public see - if you want to engage you can't wait for me to go them, they have to come to me. And I also find it ironic that you accuse me of being ideological when you are just as much

    This is getting into a circular argument.

    The point is that our traditional conceptions of left and right are based on a geopolitical situation and forms of production that came about in a world that is going to change - correspondingly, the very language and nature of our understanding will have to change.

    My concern is that we get past this left-right rubbish and just look at the facts and issues.
    It's all most of the public see - if you want to engage you can't wait for me to go them, they have to come to me. And I also find it ironic that you accuse me of being ideological when you are just as much

    Why do 'they' have to go to you? They are educating about something that is of direct importance to all of us - not selling.

    This is a problem for me and for you - for all of us. You've already decided the form in which you'd like to be convinced before you've even heard what they've got to say or engaged in any substantive way with the issues or evidence presented.

    It's not a one way street.
    Ironically I took a few days to reply because I've been out looking at how we can move more properties to Code 4 (and beyond if we can do that), so perhaps people like me are doing more than you think

    People like you?! Where did I ever state that you aren't doing anything, or even make any comment about your ecological motivations or actions. Again, straw person 'left' with straw ideas and views - that isn't what I think.

    What I said was that they are out there doing more than most, which I believe is correct. Confronting these ecological problems will require many approaches, many different actions, and much greater engagement from everyone.

    What you've outlined sounds great and I hope you keep it up - because it's only by incorporating these concerns into our daily lives, practice and production that we can turn the oil tanker around to confront these problems before it's too late.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For all the arguments back and forth I dont think those in power (and most of the public) will look beyond their next election and we wont get any changes until the climate is well and truly screwed. We have 'runaway warming' to look forward to.

    As for whether the EU should have banned these bulbs, yes, and we should be taking much tougher action elsewhere too. Frankly its too fucking late for issues such as personally liberty to choose which type of lightbulb to buy if there are completely reasonable alternatives which are exactly the same and save you money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    For all the arguments back and forth I dont think those in power (and most of the public) will look beyond their next election and we wont get any changes until the climate is well and truly screwed. We have 'runaway warming' to look forward to.

    As for whether the EU should have banned these bulbs, yes, and we should be taking much tougher action elsewhere too. Frankly its too fucking late for issues such as personally liberty to choose which type of lightbulb to buy if there are completely reasonable alternatives which are exactly the same and save you money.
    Exactly. We should be grateful to the EU on this and countless other moves, from workers to human rights, over the years, instead of bleating about 'attacks on British sovereignty' and assorted bullshit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's also off no doubt that the majority of those who oppose realistic actions to combat climate change are left wing who's motivations are ideological and jealousy and who see in climate change a chance to control their fellow man

    Again with the groundless hyperbolic statements.

    It's of 'no doubt' is it? Pray tell how you're going to prove that consensus?
Sign In or Register to comment.