Why has air pollution suddenly been picked as such a media focus?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Can anyone tell me why there is such a massive focus at the moment on air quality? Why are they choosing now? There's probably an obvious reason I'm not up to date on, but what is the agenda for this (at this precise time)?

[lljkk]

I haven't noticed any more reports than usual, but maybe you're seeing more because of the coincidence of Brexit debate, immigration (population growth debate), & this.

[claig]

Hadn't noticed but just googled the Guardian which is where most spin is to be found. An article from a few days ago links a story of interest to the masses (football) together with air pollution and of course the masses' saviour - the EU


"Is your football team playing badly? It may be air pollution"
...
to broaden knowledge on the benefits of environmental regulation.

The European Environment Agency says the financial impact of air pollution on Europe’s population could be as high as €200bn (£154bn). About 40,000 people are estimated to die prematurely every year in the UK because of poor air quality. In April the Supreme Court ruled that an immediate plan was needed after the UK breached EU limits for nitrogen dioxide. Last week the government was threatened with legal action if it does not take steps to introduce the plan urgently.


www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/05/air-pollution-football-performance

I wouldn't put it past the Esatblishment to try to get the masses to love the EU (because of the Referendum where some members of the masses have expressed doubts about remaining in) and blame national soveeignty for ruining the performance of the masses' football teams.

[claig]

In fact here is another Guardian article within the past week

"Air pollution will kill thousands in Europe, EEA warns

EU environment watchdog blames governments for failing to act on air pollution warnings saying it will lead to premature deaths across the countries "

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/03/air-pollution-will-kill-thousands-in-europe-eea-warns

Looks a bit like an EU will "save the planet" message and national sovereign governments are not up to the task. An "EU Loves You" story.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Thanks, claig. Yes, perhaps there's a "lovely benevolent EU keeping you safe from nasty killers" aspect to this.

Why do you say the Guardian is worst for spin, by the way? If anything, while the Guardian is clearly under government thumbs like the rest of the mainstream media, it's given time to a number of journalists (e.g., Charlie Skelton on Bilderberg; formerly Glenn Greenwald and Nafeez Ahmed) with very reasonable perspectives not always in line with "establishment" agendas.

[claig]

I think the Guardian is the global warming Establishment spin paper. So environmental stuff like the EU and air pollution is more likely to be reported there. Stories about how good bureaucrats are and how well our tax money is spent on them appear more often in the Guardian. It is the paper of the metropolitan elite and pushes their line to the people.

It does also have good stories and good journalism, but I am not a fan of Charlie Skelton.

The Establishment has to talk about things that the people are talking about but it is often done in a humourous way to subtly undermine the issue in order to fool the people.

[claig]

humorous

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Yes, I can certainly see how certain lines are pushed very well by the Guardian. I just think other quite decent stuff sneaks in "around the edges" (although this might be decreasing now anyway).

I like Charlie Skelton (from what I know of him, anyway).
Why aren't you a fan?

[claig]

The Guardian does have decent stories. Skelton is an Oxbridge comic writer so I am not surprised that the Establishment Guardian billed him as "our man at Bilderberg". I think a comic writer is not the best person to report on an Establishment organisation like Bilderberg.

The Oxbridge class at the Establishment BBC and the Establishment Guardian have to talk about Bilderberg to some extent because they know that the people are talking about it. But in my opinion they tend to downplay it by being humorous about it.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I can see where you're coming from. I certainly agree in general about the clever use of "funny ridicule" to rubbish dangerous ideas. But my feeling (at the moment) is that Skelton is to some extent the real deal. Sure, his credentials (Oxbridge comedy, etc.) are the reason he's managed to get a look-in, but I suspect he's canny and he'd be a lot more outspoken if he were able (look at some of his tweets). Who knows, though; never rely on individuals for your sources, etc....

Incidentally, I've just tried to access his "Bilderblog" on the Guardian because of this conversation and get "broken link". Has it been removed?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Ah no, it's back. Phew

[claig]

The Bilderblog articles are still up there at this link

www.theguardian.com/profile/charlie-skelton

They are positive in that they are a sign that the mainstream has had to report on Bilderberg otherwise readers woud start asking why the Guardian was avoiding it. They bring the subject up to people who may have never heard of it otherwise and may make them look into it further. So it is better that Skelton reports on it than not.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Yes, the only problem is that now Bilderberg's entered the mainstream they can probably just set up something else in secret and make Bilderberg the distraction. Bet you we'll start seeing tedious "minutes" of the meetings published in the next few years...

[claig]

Yes, I expect we will see stories in the media soon about how Bilderberg and the EU, together, are doing wonders for air pollution when national sovereign governments are ineffective.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Aaah, isn't the world lucky to have such wonderful benevolent plutocrats looking after it? Warms the heart.

[claig]

Yes, but they are all panicking about Trump putting an end to their game. The Guardian, the BBC, the Economist, Davos, Bilderberg and all the rest are in meltdown at the people's Presidential candidate, Donald J Trump.

Things change and the plutocrats' game may soon be up.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Well, I really can't see Trump as the knight in shining armour here ( - you're joking, right?). But it is true that more and more people are cottoning on to the lies, breaking away from relying on mainstream media outlets and beginning to have a problem with the tightening grip of control by unelected powers.

[Twinsareplenty]

Air quality - we'd all be breathing that really awful smoke that you get when you burn toast, that sticks in the back of your throat and makes your curtains smell funny for weeks if it wasn't for the EU, new EU-funded report stated today.

In other news, 4,500 EU officials are believed drowned after an EU gravy storage tank burst.

[BreakingDad77]

Well we are breaking the standards which are linked to peoples health, would have thought people would be interested in this kind of 'red tape' but alas benefit bashing is better sport.

It becomes more and more apparent from the increasing 'suck it up peasants" attitudes why the last election turned out how it did.

[claig]

BreakingDad77, there is no reason that national sovereign governments can't introduce better air pollution standards. The narrative that the media feeds us is that we depend on working together through supranational institutions like the EU in order to get that level of health and safety. But that is not true.

Don't forget that it was the US authorities who exposed the Volkswagen emission issue when it had been known about by the EU for some time before

"EU warned on devices at centre of VW scandal two years ago "

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0d7ba40-6394-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz42QWDWejw

They have to try and sell us that the EU does a better job than a national government in order to make us accept giving up our sovereignty.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Yes, I'm not doubting the reality of pollution's ill-effects or that we're breaking guidelines breaking, just wondering why it is everywhere in the media at the moment.
claig, I'm worried that maybe you are a Trump supporter and that I was inadvertently quite rude/dismissive to you there. I'm sorry if so.

[BreakingDad77]

BreakingDad77, there is no reason that national sovereign governments can't introduce better air pollution standards

I agree 100% they could gold plate it and make it even tougher than EU, as healthy productive workers means less NHS/Sick Pay/ improves efficiency etc but we got to be real here they NEVER will.

[claig]

'claig, I'm worried that maybe you are a Trump supporter and that I was inadvertently quite rude/dismissive to you there. I'm sorry if so.'

Don't worry, AnotherEffingOrangeRevel, no offence taken at all. Everybody sees things differently. Yes, I am a Trump supporter because Trump is the beginning of the end of the plutocracy since he represents the return to national sovereignty over supranational globalism as represented by Bilderberg, Davos and the EU which is why the Guardian, the BBC, the Economist and so many other organs of the Establishment are not in favour of Trump.

[claig]

'but we got to be real here they NEVER will'

BreakingDad77, you are right that up to now they haven't. But it is up to us the voters to elect a national sovereign government which does what we want. I am against GM food and the EU has done a better job on protecting us from that than our Conservative government would have done on their own, in my opinion. But that just means that we have to vote for parties that do what we want.

The EU does do good things as well as bad. But so do our governments and unlike the EU, at least we can change our governments.

[BreakingDad77]

But it is up to us the voters to elect a national sovereign government

This would sound great if we didn't have the current conservative and labour parties. I agree EU does some good and bad, but the good is often where it counts and where both Nu-Labour and Conservatives wouldn't.

I fear a brexit will deliver a ToryMax government with even less social and environmental safeguards.

[claig]

Yes, I see your point and in the short term that may be right, but over the long term we will be able to determine our own affairs and support parties which will be able to effect real democratic change. But nothing is perfect and it is swings and roundabouts.