prince William - earthshot prize

[Samcro]

could not believe it when I saw the advert for it last night. so PW is presenting this thing. the same Prince who flies all over the world.
obviously won't be watching as him and DA lecturing people about climate change is so hypocritical.
(rant over)

Similar here rousette - we've been together (DH and I, not me and you!) for 30 years and very rarely hold hands in public, I also have a very BRF so an observer would probably decide it was at best a dead marriage...!

I have @julieca if I'm not in a touchy mood, or I don't think its the right place (and he would do the same vice versa)

Not just me then!
We do have gold medals for bickering lol

@myrtleWilson I find that surprising.
DP and I have been together for just over 30 years. We rarely do PDA, but we are warm to each other as is our body language. And I would never flinch or shrug him off from a casual touch.

Well we all surprise each other in lots of ways don't we @julieca

Should make clear - I don't flinch at all and every touch and am not glaring at him constantly!

[quote julieca]@samcro so you flinch if your DP touches you in public?[/quote]
only if he makes me jump.
stupid question.

@Samcro I am obviously referring to Kate shrugging off William's casual touch. It is quite clear she does not want him to touch her at all. And they keep smiling throughout it as if it hasnt happened.

And they keep smiling throughout it as if it hasnt happened

Almost like….it wasn’t a deal at all, you mean?

If I was at work with my DH and I went to throw my arm around his shoulders in a way which he felt wasn't appropriate for the setting or if he went to hold my hand and I wasn't feeling it - I'd be okay with him shrugging my arm off his shoulders and he'd be okay with not forcing me to hold his hand - I think we'd have a pretty good shared understanding of appropriateness to a setting and bodily autonomy. Neither of which would mean we didn't love each other in that moment...

He wasnt throwing his arms around her shoulder. He touched her on the shoulder. A perfectly normal thing to do.

julieca

@Samcro I am obviously referring to Kate shrugging off William's casual touch

julieca. I’m so glad you have the time to study all these pictures and footage of a couple that you don’t personally know so that you can regale us with your pearls of wisdom about their relationship

@smilesy if you don't care about this couple you don't know, why be on this thread?

I have been discussing Earthshot 😀

One wishes to be as accomplished and as knowledgeable as Julie

Not only does she poses a PHD as eco expert, she now has a Bsc(Hons) in Body Language.

What next particle physics and quantum mechanics...

Sheldon is that you? Mum says get off the internet and stop mocking the intellectually challenged....

rubicscubicle

That's it, yes, and pretty telling I think.

@Gwrach yep insults, last refuge.
And no I am not an eco expert, what I have talked about is fairly basic eco knowledge in the field. I do work with experts though.

On that return to the topic in hand @julieca - you proposed (on another thread) that every citizen should be given a carbon allowance from the government. I think your idea was that the mechanics of it were that an individual could buy or sell their allowance? I think your aspiration behind it was that this mechanism would encourage not only individual behaviour change but societal led change - so people would move closer to jobs, or take a job (possibly lower paid) nearer to home. Do say if I've misunderstood. What I couldn't get my head round though was how to introduce this into an essentially unequal society - how could you set a carbon allowance that didn't automatically work against the poorest in society, or would the carbon allowance be "high" enough to avoid hitting the lower earners with possibly lower levels of agency and therefore only hit the richer amongst us but if so would it lose that transformative ambition?

Am interested as I think it is a good theoretical lever but can't see how it could be deployed into UK at the moment without either penalising others or not achieving change at scale? Given the thread is about Earthshot, you never know - maybe PW is lurking and may take up your idea!

Are we now bringing stuff from other threads?

Not in a malicious way samcro - I was really interested in the concept that julie set out and thought it tied in with the thinking behind Earthshot - and perhaps touched upon concerns about how scaleable an action is - how does anyone find the sweet spot of something that can make a difference - like the carbon allowance, but make it achievable without compromise, or perhaps we have to accept compromise - but then how does that diminish scale.

I do think it goes to the heart of the ambition and also the predicament we/Earthshot are in - we're not dealing with a perfect blank sheet of paper, we're dealing with inequity, with self interest, with power bases. How can we build a consensus around an idea (or many) but a consensus with agency.

I'd argue, for example that Greta's school strikes have consensus among younger people but what is the actual power of their agency?

A counter point would be the people behind Earthshot have agency but how do they grapple with the imperfect, imbalanced world to gain consensus.

Is one way of dealing with that to ignore it and go for the "earthshot" in its purest sense, or would a better way be for, for example PW, to acknowledge the inequity and voice that an Earthshot based on a carbon passport/allowance would be 'easy' for him to manage but how could he use his agency to offset inequity elsewhere.

I am really interested here in trying to explore the heart of an issue of a global challenge, an imperfect world, how to use agency and privilege for good, beyond flowery words and prizes. How to encourage and inspire whilst acknowledging inequity and actively acting to reduce that.

I don't know if PW taking on that role if he chose to would be positive or not - would people see that as progressive or virtue signalling or stepping into a political world - would it be better coming from a celebrity or business person.

Is there actually a viable role for the RF, for ex presidents, for celebrities or are they always deemed to be too compromised. And if not them, then who.... I was struck by a quote from an astronaut (I want to say Russian but I may be misremembering) who spoke about what "home" meant and how that literally changed in his mind as he voyaged from launchpad into space- first it was his village, his town, his nearest city, province, then country, continent, and finally planet. How can PW help people make the journey from village to planet - or can't he?

I'd just add/qualify for the sake of any confusion I've caused - that 'driving an electric car' etc is not what I had in mind about PW saying there is inequity and I'm going to redress that - I think it needs more than a demonstration of personal values because PW, Bill Gates, the Obamas and others in that strata can drive all the electric vehicles they like but that won't make the difference.

So, yes, demonstrable values help but not at the scale needed.

If PW said he was intending to sell off 1/3rd of RF wealth to invest in reducing inequity would that make a difference or would that spook politicians about impact on national income/wealth to an extent that they heaved in the opposite direction so that any effort by PW (or whoever) was at least partially negated...

@myrtleWilson Yes inequity is built-in, but we live in a capitalist society that is inequitable. It will never happen as it would be a vote loser. But there are two usual ways to reduce climate impact.

1. Laws - like banning plastic straws or free carrier bags. The disadvantage is these are piecemeal and take a long time to formulate, pass and enforce.
2. Persuasion - Can have some impact, so recycling has significantly increased. But it takes a while to change peoples behaviour and rarely tackles the major issues.

Why I liked the idea of a personal carbon a allowance that could be bought and sold, is that the government decides on the upper target for an acceptable level of carbon. And then individuals decide how to use that in ways that are important to them. So if they want to drive short distances instead of walking, they can, but it may mean they can never fly. Or if they want an annual holiday they may need to move house closer to their job. By limiting resources it drives behaviour change and this in turn will drive what services and industry do. For example, if you have to use part of your carbon allowance everytime you buy a drink in a disposable cup, there will be pressure on all outlets to offer an option of customers bringing their own washable cups. But you are not banning disposable cups, if someone wants this, they can have it.
It would cost money to administer of course, but perhaps at least some of this could be paid for by having a tax on income from people selling or buying carbon allowance?
You could start it off small perhaps only applying to a few things, and then increase it when you understand better how it works in practice.

Why I liked the idea of a personal carbon a allowance that could be bought and sold, is that the government decides on the upper target for an acceptable level of carbon. And then individuals decide how to use that in ways that are important to them. So if they want to drive short distances instead of walking, they can, but it may mean they can never fly. Or if they want an annual holiday they may need to move house closer to their job. By limiting resources it drives behaviour change and this in turn will drive what services and industry do

This seems fascist to me. Honestly speaking.

I can see the attraction of a personal carbon allowance in theory, but it has the potential to be very discriminating and prescriptive and not just along the lines of wealth. For example, my husband is wheelchair bound and needs to use a fairly large vehicle to accommodate him and his motorised chair to travel even relatively short distances (in the absence of any practical greener alternative at the moment). So would that mean that we would be forced to forgo holidays, which are for me important respite? And moving closer to work may well be impractical for someone who does not earn enough to afford housing in the right area. I agree we all need to take responsibility for the planet, but surely we need to have more global solutions than this. For example, wouldn’t it be better to try and limit carbon production in the first place, and mitigate factors that cause the release of carbon? We need a multi pronged approach that looks at all factors that contribute to climate change and our impact on the planet. We need to learn from ideas that have been successful and have involved cooperation and engagement from communities, rather than just develop what seem to be rather punitive systems.

@smilesy similar position here. dd is a lifetime wheelchair user so we have a large diesel van.
the trouble with a carbon allowance is that it would only benefit the well off(and able bodied)