[TV] Election Debate, Climate Change, Channel 4, TONIGHT 7pm

[Guinness Boy]

Had you read my post properly, which you clearly had not in your haste to criticise, you would have realised that I was talking in general, and not particularly about BJ, as all government leaders would be faced with the same dilemma. But as for Boris, now we all know as your eloquent and erudite summary has revealed all in its maturity of political opinion.

If you’d read his post properly you’d realise he didn’t even quote yours.

Your constant passing off of right wing propaganda as “neutral” is really, really tiresome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ernest]

Govie told to go home...

Fancy sending your Dad to do the debate for you, just getting ridiculous now

 

[vegster]

Any debate on climate change ultimately comes down to capitalism is killing the planet

This indeed, Capitalism exists to exploit a resource or pool of workers in order to profit rather than sustain.

 

[nicko31]

Fancy sending your Dad to do the debate for you, just getting ridiculous now

With Uxbridge on a brink of going Labour, he was sh1t scared of a question on Heathrow expansion...

 

[Hastings gull]

With Uxbridge on a brink of going Labour, he was sh1t scared of a question on Heathrow expansion...

As I understand it, he has a majority of over 5000 -not one of the biggest, admittedly, but hardly on the brink, as you suggest.

 

[beorhthelm]

Parliament changed the Climate Change Act (2008) back in June to commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and The CCC have said 1.5 billion trees will need to be planted to achieve this, among other things. What's so amusing then about Corbyn stating an aim of planting 2 billion trees in the next 20 years, rather than the next 30 as recommended by the CCC?

seems a lot easier to plant billion or two trees than roll back industrialisation, central heating, personal transportation. though its an awful lot of land, about 2500 sq miles i calculate, a forest covering most Sussex and Surrey. what found surprising while search around this, we already have more woodland than any time since about 1400s.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

With Uxbridge on a brink of going Labour, he was sh1t scared of a question on Heathrow expansion...

He was going to lie in front of the bulldozer wasn't he? Makes change from lying in front of the electorate.

 

[Bozza]

And as for Jezza, above all else, Corbyn will be remembered as losing to ‘Boris The Liar’ (the Country’s worst ever Prime Minister).

That's a little unfair - I'll remember him for something else too.

I'll also remember Corbyn losing to one of the worst PMs this country has had, who ran the worst ever election campaign seen in this country.

 

[ManOfSussex]

seems a lot easier to plant billion or two trees than roll back industrialisation, central heating, personal transportation. though its an awful lot of land, about 2500 sq miles i calculate, a forest covering most Sussex and Surrey. what found surprising while search around this, we already have more woodland than any time since about 1400s.

As I said on the GE thread, physically planting the trees isn't the issue, it's the availability of land as you say. That said, if a bloke in Northumberland can plant 680,000 trees on a former hill farm and turn it into the biggest new wood in England in 30 years, I don't think it's that far fetched an ambition.

 

[pb21]

I watched this and it basically seemed like five people singing from the same hymn sheet.

I really can't see a deregulated free market acting quick enough or to the extent required, which is a shame seeing as that's what we're going to be getting.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

seems a lot easier to plant billion or two trees than roll back industrialisation, central heating, personal transportation. though its an awful lot of land, about 2500 sq miles i calculate, a forest covering most Sussex and Surrey. what found surprising while search around this, we already have more woodland than any time since about 1400s.

Planting tress is not a solution - it is welcome - but it doesn't offset 200 years of destroying the rainforests etc.

You don't have to roll back industrialisation to reverse the damage to the environment - central heating can be done by renewables (indeed communal central heating is the most efficient approach) and personal transport can be massively reduced by a dramatic expansion of public transport and making it free. These are but two measures - neither will be introduced under capitalism because they do not generate sufficient profit (and in the case of free public transport - no profit at all) - at least not to the degree that is necessary to help solve the problem.

 

[Weststander]

Planting tress is not a solution - it is welcome - but it doesn't offset 200 years of destroying the rainforests etc.

You don't have to roll back industrialisation to reverse the damage to the environment - central heating can be done by renewables (indeed communal central heating is the most efficient approach) and personal transport can be massively reduced by a dramatic expansion of public transport and making it free. These are but two measures - neither will be introduced under capitalism because they do not generate sufficient profit (and in the case of free public transport - no profit at all) - at least not to the degree that is necessary to help solve the problem.

This all day long.

I’d welcome the tree planting, but it doesn’t deal with pollution, the effects of ever increasing journeys taken by plane, poorly insulated homes, and the lack of an affordable, modern public transport system.

Plus new trees don’t support the ecosystems built up over centuries in hedgerows and ancient woodlands, still being ripped up in this country for bypasses, housing, commercial developments, industrialised agriculture and motorway widening.

Planting woodland is just part of the solution.

 

[Ernest]

[tweet]1200145460759089159[/tweet]

 

[Two Professors]

Channel 4 probably has less viewers than the Grauniad,so a total waste of an evening.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Channel 4 probably has less viewers than the Grauniad,so a total waste of an evening.

You honestly relate in anyway to those twats above? Honestly, rubbish Labour all you want, but that's your people is it.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Had you read my post properly, which you clearly had not in your haste to criticise, you would have realised that I was talking in general, and not particularly about BJ, as all government leaders would be faced with the same dilemma. But as for Boris, now we all know as your eloquent and erudite summary has revealed all in its maturity of political opinion.

I'm not sure even you know what you're going on about most of the time. I am sure that nobody else does though.

Best wishes.

LL

 

[nicko31]

[tweet]1200145460759089159[/tweet]

LOL, its always someone elses fault, this time the other leaders fault for not letting Gove into the debate.

 

[LlcoolJ]

If you’d read his post properly you’d realise he didn’t even quote yours.

Your constant passing off of right wing propaganda as “neutral” is really, really tiresome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find the strange blend of pomposity, red faced anger, nonsense and no command of the English language oddly compelling.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I find the strange blend of pomposity, red faced anger, nonsense and no command of the English language oddly compelling.

He also admitted in 2017 that he voted Labour in the election of that year - it really gives his high horsed, pompous branding of people as 'corbynistas' such authoritative gravitas.

 

[beorhthelm]

Planting tress is not a solution - it is welcome - but it doesn't offset 200 years of destroying the rainforests etc.

You don't have to roll back industrialisation to reverse the damage to the environment - central heating can be done by renewables (indeed communal central heating is the most efficient approach) and personal transport can be massively reduced by a dramatic expansion of public transport and making it free. These are but two measures - neither will be introduced under capitalism because they do not generate sufficient profit (and in the case of free public transport - no profit at all) - at least not to the degree that is necessary to help solve the problem.

you dont see the wood for the trees, at war with capitalism. you need x amount of energy to heat homes, make products, that needs be produced somewhere. renewables help with core electricity energy consumption, though not reliable and needs to be 5x more to replace gas. make public transport free is fine in principle, but mass transportation is neither economical or environmental sound outside cities, needs high population density. so does communal heating. so maybe your advocating we all live in high density urban area? the prescribed solutions are always stop consuming, which is great until you realise what that means. no demand for products means no economic output. theres opportunity to seek middle ground though, where we reduce consumption, reduce energy use, but we're told they arent enough.