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

[fromorbit]

Zack Polanski is making things bigger yet again so another thread needed.

Well things have developed rather a lot since the start. ZP started out as being another sexist guy in politics - no shortage those around, but he thought he could take it to a new level and he proved he could do it.

The Green threads have followed his rise from the start of with the Hypnoboobs scandal and much more. There is also:

Mothin Ali as deputy Leader who clearly doesn't believe in trans thinking, but cleverly sidesteps round talking about it, has always had a issues with encouraging racist violence and is now encouraging people to sue the Green party if they attempt to stop them saying racist stuff.

The other deputy Rachel Millward represents the posh rich faction of the Greens who manages to sounding like Reform when opposing Asylum Seekers in her area, but at the same time saying we are too harsh on immigrants in general. Obviously she also doesn't believe women are a thing. Yet she is the least crazy when violence is concerned compared to ZP, and Mothin.

Hypnoboobs scandal got worse recently when it became clear from BBC footage ZP actively believed in the Hypnoboobs thesis rather than being tricked into it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9enygvezeo

Alongside all this there is constant ongoing attacks on biological reality from the party in interviews and in policy.

Now in the last week or so after a longstanding spate of antisemetic rhetoric from some Greens during the election campaign and ZP downplaying it. We have synagogues, schools, ambulances attacked, two Jewish people dead and ZP berating unarmed police for risking their lives in fighting a violent killer who was still armed with a knife things have come to a crisis point.

The Greens are becoming ever more sinister with dozens of candidates sounding like they are seventies NF supporters with comments about uppity women and Jewish power. The huge drama over a crazy motion which they were trying to pass against Israel at conference alongside a motion to prevent women having sports will surface again their September conference.

It seems likely after next week The Greens are going to be running a bunch of councils which doesn't bode well after their antics in Bristol.

Yet there is hope, in Bristol women are fighting back_: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5455053-bristol-council-is-about-to-be-sued_

The fight back from Green Women's Declaration, ( https://www.greenwomensdeclaration.uk/ ) continues and the court cases against GPEW from Emma Bateman and Shahrar Ali are developing, both getting through legal delaying tactics as they move to trial. Gardening is needed. These cases if successful could be dramatic in their impact.

First thread - where you can follow the rise of ZP and lots of other scandal
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5328986-greens-internal-drama-warms-up

Second Thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456759-sexismother-issues-in-the-green-party-england-wales-discussion-thread-2?

Note the Scottish Greens which are a separate party to the Green Party England/Wales have their own thread for all their sexist drama. They split off because GPEW didn't hate biology and women/gays enough at the time.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5313420-scottish-greens-being-sexist-again?page=1

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.

Forget the GP. They are cooked.

How do we address climate change without addressing emissions?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ultimately, I just think it's pointless to try and expect people to accept a worse quality of life

Yes, we are pretty fucked.

Yes. This will be the real crunch. It's why Polanski keeps stressing he's only against the 1%, when if you really think global, that 1% of 9 billion or so souls on earth would be some of those in the UK he's currently trying to get on side

I saw this quote from an Orwell essay on Rudyard Kipling:

All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy. They have internationalist aims, and at the same time they struggle to keep up a standard of life with which those aims are incompatible. We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are 'enlightened' all maintain that those coolies ought
to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our 'enlightenment', demands that the robbery shall continue. A humanitarian
is always a hypocrite, and Kipling's understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, 'making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep'.

(https://www.george-orwell.org/Rudyard_Kipling/0.html).

No one voluntarily has yet ever voted to make themselves poorer. Brexit and Trump voters were convinced they'd be richer for instance. Even Global optimist Hans Rausling observed that even the most committed environmentalist wouldn't give up ownership of their washing machine. So the question is how you get people to accept an objectively worse standard of living like not going on foreign travel when it's something most people parents if not grandparents were able to do, and voluntarily consume less

Its not because I dont like your points. Its because they dont make logical sense.

And sorry for correcting your spelling - you kept making the same error and it is a key term.

Carbon capture, as I said, seems like a great idea but nobody has managed to find an effective way to do it. And they've been trying for quite a long time.

If that is all we have, then we are fucked.

People get indignant about the potential loss of their summer holiday in the next six months and seem to not care about risking the loss of absolutely everything in the following years to come.

We will see increasing fires and destruction, crop failure, &c, but god forbid anyone gave up some comfort and convenience. I mean we are seeing it. It's here. It's going to get worse going forward.

People have been sounding the alarm for years and have been ignored.

Progress has been made in reducing emissions. Quite heartening progress, in some respects. I hope it continues.

I think the problem is firstly, if you're the only family doing it essentially your children aren't going to like you very much and secondly most people feel they have very little control over the 'climate crisis' (ironically it's only relatively well off that have the time to even get up to speed on emissions and the global picture let alone protest about it) so prioritise doing things that make them feel a bit better in the short term when they're struggling with their rent and mortgage costs and stuck in a soul destroying job they hate for ever decreasing pay in real terms.

It needs to be a collective effort, there literally is no point in people giving up holidays if everyone else isn't. ALSO, it's still the case it's cheaper to go for a week in Spain than a week in Torbay. You might find if it was the other way around, people would happily choose the more environmental option. But if it's Spain or stay at home, people deserve to get what happiness they can out of life. The people making decisions about family holidays now will be long dead before the biggest impacts are felt, and honestly I don't think it's a given how it's going to go. The fearmongering on both sides is extreme and there are lots of idiotic and untrue claims on both sides.

It's quite easy to think of better ways to reduce air travel if you really want to. Subsidised hotels in Devon and Cornwall, the Lake District, Scotland (only if you go by train), during the school hols. Reduce business taxes during that time. That'd probably reduce air travel more than any punitive measure. It needs to be carrot not just stick. I can't see this happening though as those who profit from normal people will not be on board.

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.

I am not sure who said this but cant believe the way it is framed here.

Nepal has suffered a catastrophic "natural" disaster, actual created by global warming.

WTF has that got to do with "staying" in their own country.

The problem is the over consumers, yes us in the west, have created an environment that a large part of a glacier fell away and devastation followed.

Everybody in the west looking at this needs to be reminded we contributed to this. I very much doubt that Nepal itself in anyway contributed to it.

This is the problem. People in the west are such brain dead consumers that even when they are made aware of their life style choices are a problem they carry on doing it. Even when it is workmen within out own country dying from silicosis.

A few people after the fires this year have been made slightly more aware that "something needs to be done" but will not accept it should impinge their life style. Parts of europe had their electricity rationed.

No western Government is going to say to it over consuming citizens, each year you will be given an amount of (name various things that cause problems, flying, eating meat) and you have to arrange your life within those limitations.

Not saying this would be like war time rations, but for centuries people only ate mean occasionally. We need re-educating.

And no doubt if we had these quotas there would be some sort of black market where you could sell you flying quota for the year.

And more needs to be done to help countries that are suffering from underdevelopment to improve their lives. Not just seem them as tourist destination for people from the west.

And so long as big companies, and more and more big tech, are able to influence Governments this isn't going to happen.

(Slightly off topic, but is anyone aware that there is a trend among those in tech with money to set up "independent" communities in underdeveloped countries where they live in their own "self governing state" as they dont like the way in the west they have to pay taxes etc.. So no doubt it will end up with a few of this well protected sealed off communities whilst the rest of us return to subsistent way of life.)

Hawaii: Mark Zuckerberg owns a large 2,300-acre compound in Kauai with underground shelter features. Larry Ellison owns nearly all of the island of Lanai.
Latin America and the South: Peter Thiel and other wealthy figures have purchased large ranches and properties in Argentina and Patagonia as safe havens.
Charter Cities: Projects like Próspera in Honduras and proposed crypto-funded zones in the Caribbean aim to run on separate legal systems with low or zero taxes.
Startup Cities: Collectives backed by tech figures have pushed for new independent cities, such as Praxis.

The irony is they know what they are pushing it going to cause a crisis. And they are already preparing their elite communities where they will be unaffected.

No sure why MNHQ has hidden my reply as it is just details of some of the enclaves that the tech bros are building for themselves.

How strange. Would have thought posting facts to substantiate an earlier comment would not be an issue, but welcomed!!

I'm wondering whether it's a matter of time before Alex Sobel joints the Greens. Their particular brand of student identity politics seems like a good fit for him.

Keir Starmers resignation as an MP gives Zack Polanski a chance to stand for parliament. News are leading on the possibility.

Although already chortling Chris Mason is saying green members were contacting him remembering that ZPs key pitch as leader was that he wouldn't be an MP to distract from leadership. Might give Rachel and Mothin more of a chance to shine though.