Becaus they’re virtue signaling idiots Clergs and it gives them cover to do all sorts of authoritarian things they wanted to do otherwise. Also it’s amazing how the solution to climate change tend to be higher taxes
Gotta give Clergs credit for being able to summarize the debate in a single pithy line
If Humza Yousuf actually stopped flying and started taking public transport everywhere himself - he would find it a damn sight easier to push through the kind of restrictions to lifestyle needed to actually combat climate change (and the same goes for the King, and the entire Davos/COP set who give the biannual "it's two minutes to midnight" speech at every COP while jetting in to the conference on private jets).
The fact is, while climate change is undoubtedly real, it's not politically feasible for politicians to impose the kind of harsh lifestyle changes needed on the general population to reduce energy usage - they will be tossed out at the next election (they won't even make it that far - the uproar would force immediate resignations). You're talking about almost completely restricting air travel except for essential military/government use, as harsh cuts to automobile use and much more like household heating (did you know average winter household temperatures indoors have increased like 50% in the last few decades? From like 11 to 16 or something like that? People in the 1960s had heating - they were just more likely to put a jumper on than turn the heating up).
It's never happening (although if we had a different calibre of politician and political class, it might be possible for them to lead by example and generate the sense of community and unity this country had during WW2 etc - but you know, that would require competent politicians and leading by example, and both of those things are not happening).
Which leaves us with performative virtue signallers who like the headlines when passing "tough" climate change legislation with deadlines years in the future - but when the deadlines actually start hitting, they obviously can't implement the measures needed because it is political suicide.
It's not a UK thing either - Germany is having exactly this debate for exactly the same reasons - they have a binding law with deadlines to reduce emissions etc and they are realizing it is not politically feasible to implement the measures needed (the German transport minister created a furore last week by saying meeting the deadlines would require banning automobile usage on weekends).
it might be politically impossible now but there’s a chance of some change once (if) climate chaos really starts impacting people - consistent severe weather, no pollinators, massive declines in food a availability. probably too late by then. we can’t afford to make the necessary changes - maybe we can’t afford not to?
But even if the changes have to be made for that reason, the politicians still need to lead by example or no one will take it seriously (and justifiably so).
Personally I think climate change is real but the window to do something about it and still more or less maintain our way of life closed a long time ago (maybe the 80s - the 90s at latest around the time of the Kyoto Protocol) - it's too late to prevent significant climate change (with any realistic measures that have a hope in hell of being globally implemented) and we're better off focussing on adjusting to a different kind of planet - the UK actually is likely to come out of climate change relatively well (compared to many many other places)
0
2
It's funny how Bute House survives this but the hate crime bill is sacrosanct
2
3
Let me guess, all the fault of Westminster and those evil sassenachs?
2
3
First sensible thing Scotland has done for a while
1
0
Things fell apart
2
1
This is a shocker of a decision. There was an opportunity to be a leader and they bottled it. Like risky when the nieces undress.
2
3
Net zero means poorer lives
Why would a tiny country sign up to that faster than forced to?
0
2
Scots nutters finally admit it’s not a feckin race.
0
1
Is the Welsh climate emergency that they declared in 2019 still in force? Maybe it has been quietly shelved
0
1
At every COP it’s always 2 minutes to Armageddon.
0
1
Becaus they’re virtue signaling idiots Clergs and it gives them cover to do all sorts of authoritarian things they wanted to do otherwise. Also it’s amazing how the solution to climate change tend to be higher taxes
0
1
It’s bloody freezing
0
1
Scotland is right to ditch the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030.
It should replace it with a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2025.
0
1
That’s a lot of very cold poor Scots who are miserable bastards at the best of times
0
1
people who spew shite like this never actually want to give up flying themselves
1
0
As Barney said, it’s all coz the toxzas at Westminster didn’t give them the funds they needed to carry out their policies.
It’s just so unfair and undemocratic!
0
0
Gotta give Clergs credit for being able to summarize the debate in a single pithy line
If Humza Yousuf actually stopped flying and started taking public transport everywhere himself - he would find it a damn sight easier to push through the kind of restrictions to lifestyle needed to actually combat climate change (and the same goes for the King, and the entire Davos/COP set who give the biannual "it's two minutes to midnight" speech at every COP while jetting in to the conference on private jets).
The fact is, while climate change is undoubtedly real, it's not politically feasible for politicians to impose the kind of harsh lifestyle changes needed on the general population to reduce energy usage - they will be tossed out at the next election (they won't even make it that far - the uproar would force immediate resignations). You're talking about almost completely restricting air travel except for essential military/government use, as harsh cuts to automobile use and much more like household heating (did you know average winter household temperatures indoors have increased like 50% in the last few decades? From like 11 to 16 or something like that? People in the 1960s had heating - they were just more likely to put a jumper on than turn the heating up).
It's never happening (although if we had a different calibre of politician and political class, it might be possible for them to lead by example and generate the sense of community and unity this country had during WW2 etc - but you know, that would require competent politicians and leading by example, and both of those things are not happening).
Which leaves us with performative virtue signallers who like the headlines when passing "tough" climate change legislation with deadlines years in the future - but when the deadlines actually start hitting, they obviously can't implement the measures needed because it is political suicide.
It's not a UK thing either - Germany is having exactly this debate for exactly the same reasons - they have a binding law with deadlines to reduce emissions etc and they are realizing it is not politically feasible to implement the measures needed (the German transport minister created a furore last week by saying meeting the deadlines would require banning automobile usage on weekends).
0
0
Starmer says that investing for net zero will result in 2 generations of high quality jobs
0
0
We don’t need arbitrary deadlines and government posturing. Governments should trust in and support technology and innovation and we’ll get there.
0
0
it might be politically impossible now but there’s a chance of some change once (if) climate chaos really starts impacting people - consistent severe weather, no pollinators, massive declines in food a availability. probably too late by then.
we can’t afford to make the necessary changes - maybe we can’t afford not to?
0
0
Yes, that's the question isn't it bullace?
But even if the changes have to be made for that reason, the politicians still need to lead by example or no one will take it seriously (and justifiably so).
Personally I think climate change is real but the window to do something about it and still more or less maintain our way of life closed a long time ago (maybe the 80s - the 90s at latest around the time of the Kyoto Protocol) - it's too late to prevent significant climate change (with any realistic measures that have a hope in hell of being globally implemented) and we're better off focussing on adjusting to a different kind of planet - the UK actually is likely to come out of climate change relatively well (compared to many many other places)
0
0
The globe will warm up regardless of CO2 or the SNO. In other news Peter Murrell just charged with theft. What a joke devolution was
0
0
SNP not SNO
Join the discussion