Sexism/other issues in the Green party England & Wales - Discussion Thread 3

It really isn't that straightforward and realistically even if the entire population of the UK stopped consuming energy immediately it would have minimal impact.

Not everyone will be affected by the most severe effects of climate change. Only some people. Some people to a greater or lesser extent can insulate themselves from consequences - being rich is the main way. Most people who get rich use fossil fuels in some way to do so and also will use them to escape consequences. And these are the people who run the world.

Some environmentalists argue (they might be right) that capitalism is inherently incompatible with making any meaningful impact on reducing man-made climate change (the climate is always changing, the question is how much is man-made and how rapid / bad for human life it'll be). In terms of humanity, anything that isn't capitalism / democracy has usually resulted in human rights horrors.

I do wonder if human rights as we understand them are compatible with net zero / reducing emissions to the point we can avoid the bit of climate change that is man made. I think it's quite possible they're not.

As with men in women's spaces, sometimes there is a real conflict.

Sorry, I meant emissions not admissions, (I'm cooking my tea)

Climate change is a natural phenomena that is being exacerbated by human activity, not caused by human activities.

Countermeasures that could buy us time to come up with something more than slogans. Carbon capture, there's even talk about crushing rocks an spreading them over the land to lock in atmospheric CO2, I've read about all sorts of suggestions, I'm don't know how effective they would be, because I'm not educated enough it it all but I am informed.

If you want to talk about whataboutery, it's not just lifestyle that need changing, the whole of the modern world is built on oil, for an example if we don't refine oil it we won't produce the source material we need for every medication we've developed so far.

If you want to talk about denial, there are consequences to not burning fossil fuels and trying to ignore them is not going to make them go away.

Don't get snitting with me just because you don't like any of the points I've made.

Carbon capture? Cleaner technology yes, maybe. Depends on the location. Nuclear?

Nuclear power could hugely reduce carbon emissions.. But some environmentalists are opposed on other grounds.

'emissions' is very vague. There are lots of different 'emissions' from different technologies. They all interact in different ways to impact the climate. The diesel car example is a good one.

But ultimately, I just think it's pointless to try and expect people to accept a worse quality of life and go backwards (which reducing emissions of CO2 specifically via society wide bans, without at the same time technological advances / nuclear power will just be a fact, and may not in fact work if people are still free to burn their own fuel) especially given quality of life is falling already, due to human nature . As I said it's the Prisoner's dilemma. As long as there's an advantage to screwing over other people, humans will do it. I think adaptation and mitigation needs to happen, not reduction alone. You need win-win solutions.

If you get widespread burning of stuff because of rioting, or war, that will create a lot of emissions too and will cancel out any gains.

You could say reducing emissions is simplistic, yes. We do so or we risk the most severe effects of climate change. I mean it is quite stark.

I'm sorry but you seem to be very uninformed.

What countermeasures?!

Its emissions, not admissions.

Reducing emissions is in progress. Its going slowly, but it is happening. Worldwide, shifts are happening.

Concurrently, global geopolitics are rumbling into action over resources, access, etc. The effects of climate change include unrest, war, migration, and these are unfortunately likely to exacerbate emissions, as we see as oil fields are bombed, etc.

The GP are a mess, but I hope that sensible posters on here acknowledge that human influenced climate change is understood to be in progress by the vast majority of the scientific community and govts around the world.

Of course we need to reduce emissions and yes of course this means people have to go change their lifestyles and habits!

Denial and whataboutery helps nobody. I can understand defeatism, but again, it doesn't help. We may still be able to mitigate the worst impacts, but the time is increasingly short.

100% agree with all of this 'reducing emissions' is so simplistic. Sometimes it's a trade off with different types of emissions and different types of harm and to whom / what. Remember when diesel was seen as more environmentally friendly because it produces less CO2? Glossing over the pollution issues for air quality and health and wildlife / biodiversity.

There was a sensible woman from some part of government dealing with foreign aid the other day on the BBC (yep, I was shocked too) and she made the point that we need to invest more in making countries like Nepal more resilient to climate change and natural disaster, rather than funding asylum/ immigration here. This makes sense on a human level - because if we can make it better for people to stay in their home country surely they'll want to - and also an environmental level - lots of people migrating drives up CO2 emissions, it's really environmentally unfriendly. Whether that's actually possible, who knows. I was partially convinced by her argument.

Forget the GP. They are cooked.

How do we address climate change without addressing emissions?

In fact it's disproportionately affecting Europe, so far. I wonder if the people in Napal might argue with that.

It's not a plan, it's a suggestion, there are many things that are contributing to the increase in temperature, where do they want to reduce the emissions from?

We could stop using bricks, concrete, etc, we could use wood to build with but you cut down a tree you release the carbon into the atmosphere. For every up there is a massive down, reducing our use of fossil fuel will have a big down. Unless they've thought it through, the big down could just result in more admissions being released.

If the reductions are not made in the right areas it will make no difference, a plan would be where the reductions should be made for the most effective result for the least social impact.

We are not going to solve this overnight, it's going to be a century before any measures we come up with, if any, kick in. In the mean time people still have to survive the oncoming disaster. If we tie our hands behind our backs by not investing in countermeasures while we try to figure out how to solve the problem. they won't be any people left to save the world for.

reducing emissions, reducing fossil fuel usage.

Are slogans not plans.

Rachel Millward the deputy green that's allowed on media was on the radio the other day campaigning against data centres. I think it might be that there might be one about to be built in the vicinity of her council area but can't remember now

They also had a guy from some data company who did point out that the BBC sounds app they were being heard on was powered by a data centre, and so was the green party website.

Moreover, the work from home promotion being championed by the green party to cut carbon emissions from travel would be dependent on data centres.

It's a moot point and it touches on a lot of stuff like the "NIMBY" thing. Millward infamously was also campaigning against a migrants hostel in her council area. Then parrots "refugees are welcome here"

Possible they were infiltrated

I really hadn’t thought of that, but it would make perfect sense.

No but it is A position in the most extreme fringes of environmental activism, essentially.

The point is, everything is framed as 'good for the environment' but actually the thing that would be MOST 'good for the environment' if you're talking biodiversity and stopping man-made climate change is less humans. This is the truth that no-one wants to say but for many environmental policies it's about who suffers.

Environmental activism is largely about who - among humans - has to bear the cost of reducing the harm to other humans. Because humanity is the way it is, that usually means the 1% don't have to change their behaviour at all, governments flying their PMs around the world to climate conferences is a good example, and I think policies like limiting flights normal people can take to see their families is a good example of this.

I personally care about humanity. I don't want environmental policies causing harm of the most vulnerable and sometimes they do. Also, sometimes they cause environmental damage (see biofuel above) because they're not well thought through. A lot of discussion around this all reminds me of TRAs - it's cult like, you're a heretic if you express any concern about anything.

It's also inconsistent, if you want open borders (as GP does) then those people coming to the UK will visit their home country relatively frequently because they have relatives there. You're creating a population that will travel far more than the native UK population, you're driving up the demand for flights on one hand and performatively saying you'll be reducing them on the other.

Yes.

Possible they were infiltrated. There's a lot of money to be lost should some of the policies they suggest be enacted - see posts above. Lots of people will lose lots of money - primarily the fossil fuel industry.

Possible they were just too naive.

It's a neat trick to suggest that limiting or reducing fossil fuels will impoverish the average citizen. Like we are all profiting from the vast revenues of the fossil fuel industry at the moment!

What we need to do is ensure sensible management and public ownership of new tech, like wind and solar, wave and nuclear.

Unfortunately its currently all being signed off to foreign interests.

No disagreement from me on those points.

Everyone on earth can say 'I'm not making any lifestyle changes until everyone else does'.

We will see how that works out - it seems to be the general approach.

Climate change affects the whole globe. In fact it's disproportionately affecting Europe, so far. So we have to have solutions that are enacted globally, and we have to do what we can. We're all in it together, in terms of the effects of climate change.

Yes, environmentalists have plans. The most urgent of these is reducing emissions, reducing fossil fuel usage. Do you disagree that we should be doing this?

You're suggesting that we don't try to reduce emissions based on the belief that human extinction or mass human death will be a good thing, overall?

Is that your position, or have I misunderstood?

The GP could have been making the case for policies, however contentious, that would benefit the environment, for the last decade. They might even have gained some traction, given the very obvious way the climate is changing and affecting everyone’s lives. Instead, they focused on identity politics and anti-science, reality denying bullshit.

They blew it.

I agree the wholesale adoption of the tech advances is reckless and why we're in the climate shit we're in. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do it, and sometimes old school is just as effective at getting the job done on a local level.
If the Greens were to propose a 5 year whole wide ban on the adoption of new technology, until we've had enough time to assess the impact and the need for it I might support that. Of course the US and China in particular won't go for that but our government could start by not buying any more of the tech systems that any country is flogging.

But then our government is turning into Big Brother, and it can't spy on the population without its high tech toys.
It's not just the people who have to change their habits but governments do as well, and as governments probably contribute more admissions than the population do, I say the governments go first, if they lead and we will follow.

The TL:DR from the above is - it could be argued there is no point limiting flights if you're also building data centres and exponentially driving unnecessary data usage upwards.

Edited to add: Of course the latter will make the 1% richer, the former only means people can visit their families (obviously politicians and businesspeople will still be able to fly).

The government is doing nothing about the insane rise in data usage via mobile phones. I don't want to do things I used to do with actual humans via apps but I have no choice, this is less freedom for consumers. This is not environmentally (or socially) neutral.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/09/google-developers-significantly-misstate-carbon-emissions-of-proposed-uk-datacentres

From the article above

"Google and Greystoke have publicly argued that their developments will have a tolerable, in some cases insignificant, impact on the UK’s climate roadmap. Elsham Tech Park’s developers have said it will improve biodiversity on its campus by having bird and bat boxes, and wildflower grassland.
All three developments are classed as having a “minor adverse” impact on the UK’s overall climate goals.
However, the Thurrock datacentre will produce more emissions than an international airport, and Elsham Tech Park’s peak emissions will reach 1m tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2033-34 – just short of the 1.2m tonnes of carbon emissions of all the UK’s domestic flights"

Yet there is very little debate about whether companies should be allowed to force users to use data all the time to do everything. There is no reason I should have to use a data harvesting app to pay for school lunches, for example. I should be able to just pay the school directly.

We need to think about whether we're making life for our citizens better or worse via environmental policies as well as whether it benefits a global goal. And we should make damn sure we're not hugely reducing quality of life AND damaging the environment for a headline.

What isn't, is destroying the rainforest to grow soya to feed stock.

We don't have any rain forests, is our Green Party going to rule the world as well.
We could do with a more sustainable food production plan, but with a population going on 70 million, we're never going to be self-sufficient in food. Not without a radical plan, even a plan to have a plan, have the Greens got one them at least. There's no way our population will be fed fully and remain healthy on greens and pulses. In order to grow anything the land needs to be fertilised, which we get from oil, we're not producing enough of that either.

The UK is only responsible for 2% of the world's admissions, we could maybe push that up to 2.5% because of our habit of out sourcing our admissions. So even if we pauper ourselves and put ourselves back to the dark ages, our noble sacrifice won't save the world. Although I guess with 70 million less mouths to feed there might be a smidgen less pollution in the world.

I think my educational plan was a plan, not a detailed plan I admit, but more than just a goal.

If it's clear that doing so will actually have a net positive benefit for the environment and for humans.

The reason we care about climate change is ultimately selfish - it's because very rapid climate change is likely to cause mass human harm and death, so there's not a lot of point enacting policies that do that too. Then you're just choosing which set of humans to fuck over. That's political. Expecting your citizens to say 'oh it's fine, I'll be the one fucked over' is insane.

From an actual environment point of view (and some activists come from this point) I think life on earth will be fine if humans became extinct. Cockroaches might inherit the earth. As with previous changes to the climate, some dominant species will die out, others will benefit from and adapt to a radically different environment. Biodiversity will change. In terms of the millions of species other than humans in the world, overall I suspect a drastic reduction in the human population, even if accompanied with drastic climate change, would overall be positive. We're the problem for most of the rest.

Ultimately climate activism is selfish in many different ways.

There have been loads of supposed 'environmental' policies that have resulted in net harm. E.g. Government mandates requiring a specific percentage of renewable fuels (like ethanol or biodiesel) in commercial transport fuel, driving a commercial opportunity and land use change and destruction of forests etc to grow biofuel crops and resulting in massive CO2 release as well as reduction in biodiversity.

The climate and the economy are both complex and interact. Most environmental policies in this country at least are not looked at in the wider context, but the global environment is all about the wider context, feedback loops, balancing risks etc.

I believe that so-called 'environmental' policies are mostly these days a popularity contest and opportunity for self-congratulation and appearing to be trendy. The green party being a shining example of this.

limiting farmers use of the machinery they need to produce the food we need to eat in order to stay alive

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean, here.

UK farming methods are on the whole fairly sustainable. What isn't, is destroying the rainforest to grow soya to feed stock.

Limiting air travel will no doubt be the start of it if they gained the power to do it. Stopping people using their cars would be next, although that one's already in the works. They want to limit the amount of meat people eat, so limiting farmers use of the machinery they need to produce the food we need to eat in order to stay alive, would be next.

Well, we need to reduce emissions. We can't do that without reducing our emissions.

This one?

'One resource we haven't depleted is our intellectual resource, a radical plan would be to direct all our educational efforts to finding a way to undo the damage that we've done. No more Humanities, from now on science, science and more science until someone or more like a couple of thousand someones from all over the globe working together comes up with something.'

I mean, this isn't a plan. It's a plan to make a plan.

Limiting air travel will no doubt be the start of it if they gained the power to do it. Stopping people using their cars would be next, although that one's already in the works. They want to limit the amount of meat people eat, so limiting farmers use of the machinery they need to produce the food we need to eat in order to stay alive, would be next.

I just gave you one, a radical one as well.

It's not the size that counts, being tiny doesn't mean they couldn't come up with a plan, I didn't say they hadn't enacted any plans but that for all they're talk they haven't come up with a plan that we can now enact. They should have one ready and waiting to be used if only they had done more than just talk.