RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 8:13 pm Twitter post, for the non-paedos among us:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Yesterday 44 of the world’s leading climate scientists wrote an open letter about collapse of the Atlantic Ocean’s circulation (AMOC) <br><br>When I interviewed one of them about the consequences of AMOC reaching a tipping point he could barely keep it together. <a

KemiBadenoch wrote:What I’m saying is that climate change is a serious issue that needs work. But what strategy should we pick? We could pick an adaptation strategy, that this is going to happen. How do we build lives that will work within that?

We’ve chosen the strategy, which is to reduce carbon emissions. There is no guarantee that that will work. I want to see something, if we are going down that path, something that has other benefits. So energy security.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 5:17 pm I can't read this thread right now, because I already have enough existential dread about the world my children are growing up into being properly fucked by the rise of fascism and authoritarianism and cannot add the fact that the planet is probably already irretrievably broken into my impending mental health breakdown right now.

But today managed to combine the two together, as I discovered the likely leader of the opposition (and demagogue who will probably need very little poking to go full fascist) is a "not a climate change sceptic, but a Net Zero sceptic":

KemiBadenoch wrote:What I’m saying is that climate change is a serious issue that needs work. But what strategy should we pick? We could pick an adaptation strategy, that this is going to happen. How do we build lives that will work within that?

We’ve chosen the strategy, which is to reduce carbon emissions. There is no guarantee that that will work. I want to see something, if we are going down that path, something that has other benefits. So energy security.

Sure, that sounds like a viable option. We'll just adapt. Be able to grow wine grapes in Kent and enjoy a mediterranean climate. It'll all be fine.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 4:03 pm This was quite entertaining.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c__fDd1dN ... Aice9ECubk" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:20 am Fuck the climate, just go with gut instinct on what might cause growth, eventually.

FFS if Reeves wants big projects to boost the economy, stick to rail. This is climate destroying fantasy economics.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ine-ticket

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:25 am London air pollution down since Ulez extended to outer boroughs, study finds
Levels of deadly pollutants have dropped, with significant improvements in capital’s most deprived areas

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:51 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:25 am London air pollution down since Ulez extended to outer boroughs, study finds
Levels of deadly pollutants have dropped, with significant improvements in capital’s most deprived areas

A rare good news story and especially welcome because it involves a politician not caving on a morally good policy just because GB News and Reform created an astroturfed public backlash to it.

Puja

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:10 am

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:51 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:25 am London air pollution down since Ulez extended to outer boroughs, study finds
Levels of deadly pollutants have dropped, with significant improvements in capital’s most deprived areas

A rare good news story and especially welcome because it involves a politician not caving on a morally good policy just because GB News and Reform created an astroturfed public backlash to it.

Puja

Wasn't just them. It was literally the only thing my parents and extended family wanted to talk about. How Kahn is a terrible, terrible person because he's made this law and now they're going to have to give up their cars or pay £6k or whatever sum they dreamed up.

It was poorly communicated, it "targeted" a group of people who are amongst the loudest, and it played in to existing prejudices. It was always going to be deeply unpopular among the loudest demographic.

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:33 am

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:10 am

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:51 am

A rare good news story and especially welcome because it involves a politician not caving on a morally good policy just because GB News and Reform created an astroturfed public backlash to it.

Puja

Wasn't just them. It was literally the only thing my parents and extended family wanted to talk about. How Kahn is a terrible, terrible person because he's made this law and now they're going to have to give up their cars or pay £6k or whatever sum they dreamed up.

It was poorly communicated, it "targeted" a group of people who are amongst the loudest, and it played in to existing prejudices. It was always going to be deeply unpopular among the loudest demographic.

I poorly communicated - the fascists created the seed for the backlash with astrouturfing and blatant lies, but it was genuinely public (certainly enough to cost the Uxbridge and Ruislip by-election) because very few people are immune to propaganda and Labour refused to stand up and refute it, leading to a one-way direction of debate. Labour curled back in on themselves with a supine, "Well, I guess, if you don't like it, then we can always change," but Khan stood his ground and has done good.

Puja