Gender row ‘stops Greens focusing on climate change’

[Igneococcus]

Article about the legal challenges brought against the GP in the Sunday Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e83aa4ca-6dca-11ed-baff-fc7a2096b607?shareToken=2b38b04f29d8946eb0486b7e71e15437

I think the GP have always been pro-social justice, arguing that climate collapse will hurt the poorest and most disadvantaged more than anything. So I guess it's then a short step to taking on board the claims of a group who consistently claim to be more disadvantaged than anyone.

But - even if that were true - why is it being allowed to override environmental disaster? Nothing beats that.

Where I am there's a lovely GP councillor who posts frequently about trans rights, and I just feel despair that no one will focus on actual green issues.

I think that's true, but in general I don't think they have actually addressed that well. And that is not just in the UK, but any Green Parties I have seen.

While long term it's certainly true that being poor makes people more vulnerable to climate change, in the short term being poor often means being more vulnerable to programs and policies recommended by environmentalists. And it's not something that they tend to address in a useful, concrete way, or even in an entirely honest way.

SO I am just a little skeptical that, in the end, it's really about that. They may think it is about that, but I think there are very mixed motivations.

I think there is something in that. There's a certain amount of naivety involved, that anyone who joins the party joins because they want the same things the existing party / members want too. No anticipation that there could be bad actors, or cuckoos wishing to take over your party assets (manpower, goodwill, respectability) to their own end, or entryism ("the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives"). No knowledge of human nature, in fact. Just dumb naivety that then bites them (and the electorate) on the bum.

Large established parties are more difficult to do that with, with their unwieldy rules of association and manifestos and committees and ruling councils and a goodly number of people out for themselves and therefore alert to would-be entryists.

Why are people arguing this is their zenith not nadir? Why is this complete failure of the greens party ability to focus on their sole priority their nadir? It had better not be their zenith or what hope is there for the environment…

Because of the context of the post which used the word.

This AND arguably their stance is harmful for the environment by it's promotion of unnecessary medical interventions and drugs.

@MangyInseam I think your point about the impact on poorer groups is very important, and something progressive groups are unable to acknowledge - along with the impact of promoting trans rights on women's rights. This not only closes down debate but also means that it becomes impossible to discuss ways of limiting the damage of policies to specific groups, or of reformulating policies so that they aren't damaging in the first place.

Yes, exactally.

A really good example that I see right now where I live is the power company, which is semi-private, has for years been working to increase energy from renewables. And they were mandated to do this by the government, it's not a choice. This is very expensive.

With other issues this summer, they applied to increase power rates by about 50% over the next year and a bit. People were of course freaking out, and the request was denied, they were given a much lower rate increase. And basically they came back and said, fine - but we can't make these infrastructure changes if that is what you are giving us.

Now, could they trim what is going to fat cats? Maybe, but that really isn't solving the problem in any serious way. Which is that they need money to do the environmental stuff, and people can't pay it. The province also is not in a position to do much for people directly. So....