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

[RossyG]

I think they have a place but don't see why the leaders (of any party) has to attend every one just because a TV company demands it?

The sense of entitlement the mainstream media has is extraordinary. As you say, why should senior politicians show up at their beck and call.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The sense of entitlement the mainstream media has is extraordinary. As you say, why should senior politicians show up at their beck and call.

Because it's a "leader's debate" in their minds. But in mine the issue is different. Why wouldn't you turn up unless you had something to hide?

 

[RossyG]

But it’s only a leaders’ debate because the media say so.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

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.

1. yes you need energy - at the moment that comes predominantly from fossil fuels and nuclear power - but of which are unsustainable for the future.
2. renewables are reliable - the sun is always shining - the waves are in constant motion - hydro is highly efficient - etc - the problem is that you need planning to utilise renewables in an efficient and consistent manner and that is impossible under capitalism that relies on the anarchy of the market as the mechanism for energy production
3. mass public transportation is not only appropriate but necessary - it is only 'economically' unsound if you ignore the damage current forms of transport have on the environment. As for not being 'environmentally' sound - well it is a hell of a lot better than millions of cars pumping toxic chemicals into the environment. Mass public transport is based on utilising all forms of transportation - buses, trains, light rail, rapit transit, taxis and cars in an integrated and planned system.
4 communal heating does not require high population density - indeed it is more economical than current systems with housing groups of as little as 20 houses. England has a far higher population density than Ireland (about 4 times higher) and communal heating makes massive sense even in Ireland - for homes not close to others, renewables can provide the necessary heat.
5. I am advocating that you cannot rely on the anarchy of the market to save the planet - in order to do that you need a fundamental change in the economic structure of society from capitalism to a democratically planned socialised economy that protects the climate and provides for the needs of 99% of the population, not the greed of the 1%.
6. where have I advocated that we 'stop consuming' - I am advocating shifting the basis of how consumption is organised - from consumption for profit to consumption based on need.
7. economic activity does not have to be based on market demand - market demand ignores the impact on the environment (and on the vast majority of the population) and is based on short term profit rather than long term planning. Economic activity based on planned for need - not profit - is the only sustainable way forward - for the environment and for overall economic development.
8 the 'middle ground' means more of the same - it means not threatening the interests of capital - it means fudging the issue and kicking the can down the road (until it is too late) - the middle ground means we are f*cked - what is required is system change.
9. we don't need to reduce consumption or reduce energy use - we need to make them sustainable - and they can only be made sustainable when based on need, not profit. 26 individuals have more wealth than 50% of the worlds population (3.8 billion people) - for them sustainability means 50% must live in dire poverty so they can maintain their wealth and power - that wealth would fundamentally alter the nature of society if it was put to useful and planned social activity. Eliminating poverty is the first step to saving the planet - and that requires a democratically planned socialised economy - without it the 1% will continue to burn the planet while they build their environmental doomsday bunkers on the south island of New Zealand.

While this individual can really be a pain at times - he hits the nail on the head in this -

 

[beorhthelm]

2. renewables are reliable - the sun is always shining

couldnt leave that, its 11:30pm and there's no solar here. seems any solution that isnt in step with the agenda, nuclear, planting trees, dare i say carbon taxes, isnt to be part of solution. may be you're right, with "planned socialised economy" everything will be just fine without change to living standards.

 

[clapham_gull]

But it’s only a leaders’ debate because the media say so.

It's a leaders debate because it was a leaders debate, an open invitation to all leaders. Boris was decided his wasn't his strong area and didn't turn up.

Up to his team to manage the fall out.

Sense of entitlement ? Everyone else is confident of their brief, Boris obviously isn't. His been advised probably quite rightly by his advisers his best chance of success is not to be challenged,

Please don't attempt to define it as something else, that's apparently the job of dad.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

If you'd watched Chris Packham's programme this evening, you'd see that trees do deal with pollution. A school by a main road had very poor air quality two years ago. They planted trees between the school and the road, and the air quality have improved tremendously. All measured and scientifically done.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

1. yes you need energy - at the moment that comes predominantly from fossil fuels and nuclear power - but of which are unsustainable for the future.
2. renewables are reliable - the sun is always shining - the waves are in constant motion - hydro is highly efficient - etc - the problem is that you need planning to utilise renewables in an efficient and consistent manner and that is impossible under capitalism that relies on the anarchy of the market as the mechanism for energy production
3. mass public transportation is not only appropriate but necessary - it is only 'economically' unsound if you ignore the damage current forms of transport have on the environment. As for not being 'environmentally' sound - well it is a hell of a lot better than millions of cars pumping toxic chemicals into the environment. Mass public transport is based on utilising all forms of transportation - buses, trains, light rail, rapit transit, taxis and cars in an integrated and planned system.
4 communal heating does not require high population density - indeed it is more economical than current systems with housing groups of as little as 20 houses. England has a far higher population density than Ireland (about 4 times higher) and communal heating makes massive sense even in Ireland - for homes not close to others, renewables can provide the necessary heat.
5. I am advocating that you cannot rely on the anarchy of the market to save the planet - in order to do that you need a fundamental change in the economic structure of society from capitalism to a democratically planned socialised economy that protects the climate and provides for the needs of 99% of the population, not the greed of the 1%.
6. where have I advocated that we 'stop consuming' - I am advocating shifting the basis of how consumption is organised - from consumption for profit to consumption based on need.
7. economic activity does not have to be based on market demand - market demand ignores the impact on the environment (and on the vast majority of the population) and is based on short term profit rather than long term planning. Economic activity based on planned for need - not profit - is the only sustainable way forward - for the environment and for overall economic development.
8 the 'middle ground' means more of the same - it means not threatening the interests of capital - it means fudging the issue and kicking the can down the road (until it is too late) - the middle ground means we are f*cked - what is required is system change.
9. we don't need to reduce consumption or reduce energy use - we need to make them sustainable - and they can only be made sustainable when based on need, not profit. 26 individuals have more wealth than 50% of the worlds population (3.8 billion people) - for them sustainability means 50% must live in dire poverty so they can maintain their wealth and power - that wealth would fundamentally alter the nature of society if it was put to useful and planned social activity. Eliminating poverty is the first step to saving the planet - and that requires a democratically planned socialised economy - without it the 1% will continue to burn the planet while they build their environmental doomsday bunkers on the south island of New Zealand.

While this individual can really be a pain at times - he hits the nail on the head in this -

Spot-on. I'm afraid some sort of paradigm shift is needed. I think we have reached the point where this model of capitalism (yes, yes. for all its strengths) is simply not compatible with the survival of the planet.

 

[Weststander]

If you'd watched Chris Packham's programme this evening, you'd see that trees do deal with pollution. A school by a main road had very poor air quality two years ago. They planted trees between the school and the road, and the air quality have improved tremendously. All measured and scientifically done.

I agree with him/you. I’m alluding to the wider pollution issue across the planet, whether it be from industry, planes, farming, waste, and general selfishness. I’m loving this plant trees consensus, but it’s just part of solution.

 

[nicko31]

The sense of entitlement the mainstream media has is extraordinary. As you say, why should senior politicians show up at their beck and call.

There only one group that thinks it has a "sense of entitlement" and it ain't the media...

 

[Blue3]

Brexit party and Tory Party the same thing in all but name neither has anything to say regarding the environment so being represented by melting ice spoke eloquently on their behalf

The very freedom of the press is at stake here the Tories are saying they will review the charter that Channel 4 has when they get into power, what they are saying is they intend to ensure Channel 4 undergoes a similar cleansing that the BBC under went where any left wing views are systematically removed

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Brexit party and Tory Party the same thing in all but name neither has anything to say regarding the environment so being represented by melting ice spoke eloquently on their behalf

The very freedom of the press is at stake here the Tories are saying they will review the charter that Channel 4 has when they get into power, what they are saying is they intend to ensure Channel 4 undergoes a similar cleansing that the BBC under went where any left wing views are systematically removed

Politicians wanting to close down criticism from the media is a very slippery slope.
I hate some of the newspapers but I wouldn't want to close them down. I just hope they go out of circulation because nobody buys them any more.

 

[maltaseagull]

I'm no fan of Corbyn but I must say I'd rather have him as PM than a melting block of ice

Ahhh, but which one would make a decision first?

 

[nicko31]

Brexit party and Tory Party the same thing in all but name neither has anything to say regarding the environment so being represented by melting ice spoke eloquently on their behalf

The very freedom of the press is at stake here the Tories are saying they will review the charter that Channel 4 has when they get into power, what they are saying is they intend to ensure Channel 4 undergoes a similar cleansing that the BBC under went where any left wing views are systematically removed

The Tories hate Ofcom as it requires UK broadcasters to demonstrate impartiality, when you put this against a print media 80% right wing bias this translates to a left wing broadcast media bias. They have bullied the Beeb for years now, for example they confused to take on the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Now trying to do same to Channel 4

Grand plan is disband Ofcom and open broadcast media to likes of Murdoch. Fox News UK may be closer than everyone thinks.

 

[Machiavelli]

Spot-on. I'm afraid some sort of paradigm shift is needed. I think we have reached the point where this model of capitalism (yes, yes. for all its strengths) is simply not compatible with the survival of the planet.

It's not quite the survival of the planet, which will carry on regardless. It's the life forms on it, as a result of the Anthropocene that we've ushered in.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

couldnt leave that, its 11:30pm and there's no solar here. seems any solution that isnt in step with the agenda, nuclear, planting trees, dare i say carbon taxes, isnt to be part of solution. may be you're right, with "planned socialised economy" everything will be just fine without change to living standards.

The sun shines on half the planet all the time - and solar isn't the only form of renewable energy

nuclear is a disaster - we are stuck with waste from nuclear plants for millennia

I support planting tress - lots of them - but it is not a solution - it is one small part of what needs to be done

I oppose carbon taxes - 100 companies are causing 71% of the climate crisis - carbon taxes hit the 99% - not the people causing the crisis - and they are not a solution because people need energy/transport and have to use fossil fuels if there is nothing else available.

Why should a democratically planned socialised economy decrease living standards ? - or are you claiming that any solution to the climate crisis will mean a drop in living standards - in which case, why?

 

[Bold Seagull]

couldnt leave that, its 11:30pm and there's no solar here. seems any solution that isnt in step with the agenda, nuclear, planting trees, dare i say carbon taxes, isnt to be part of solution. may be you're right, with "planned socialised economy" everything will be just fine without change to living standards.

You can power the entire globe if you took 1% of the Sahara desert and made it solar collecting. You could cover that area in today's solar technology at an approx. cost of 5 trillion dollars, or 10% of the world's GDP, or a little under what the US paid to bail out it's banks. It would work out 10 times cheaper than the equivalent power output of nuclear. And that includes cabling across the globe to deliver the power.

This is already happening in small capacity delivery with North African countries supplying Europe through cabling under the Med with clean solar generated energy.

All we lack really is ambition.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

'kin cold today, I want to be outside sunbathing. Fake news.

 

[Blue3]

Politicians wanting to close down criticism from the media is a very slippery slope.
I hate some of the newspapers but I wouldn't want to close them down. I just hope they go out of circulation because nobody buys them any more.

The printed press is in decline but it's digital output is growing and its influence is as strong as ever

 

[beorhthelm]

You can power the entire globe if you took 1% of the Sahara desert and made it solar collecting. You could cover that area in today's solar technology at an approx. cost of 5 trillion dollars, or 10% of the world's GDP, or a little under what the US paid to bail out it's banks. It would work out 10 times cheaper than the equivalent power output of nuclear. And that includes cabling across the globe to deliver the power.

This is already happening in small capacity delivery with North African countries supplying Europe through cabling under the Med with clean solar generated energy.

All we lack really is ambition.

we did not spend 5 trillion on the banks, unless people start counting load underwriting or lost economic growth.

i dont think we lack the ambition, but problems of resources and politics. i recall the plan to plant solar across the Sahara well over a decade ago. along with technical and resource challenges there was this local trouble about 9 years ago, remember?

its not simple to say "lets do it", resources have to be allocated to the effort, which are being employed elsewhere. some get het up about who owns the assets or dares to make profit, overlooking the basic mechanism of economy do not change. people need to work on project, products made, materials consumed, and this does not happen for nothing. and there are technical hurdles, long distance cabling is problematic with DC favoured but incompatible with AC of electricity grids. point to point may work but you need to use the power at the other end of the point. too easy to confuse what is "possible" with what is deliverable. ees complicated.