Funkstain wrote:

If anything an autocratic authoritarian gov may be the only way to achieve the actual changes needed, right?

I’d hope not, and I get where you are coming from now - apologies if my response came across overly hostile.

I admire China a lot - it’s a bloody brilliant country. And seeing first hand the huge effort, from grassroots up, to protect the environment has been heartening (even if they could do with using far, far fewer plastics!). From a personal aversion to energy waste, food waste, a commitment to planting trees (we do tree planting days), a commitment to renewables and building the infrastructure around it - electric cars! Electric buses! High speed rail! Regular and cheap public transport! Metro lines aplenty! Home solar!

It’s a lot and it’s cool. China pollutes a lot, it’s a big country. Globally though it sits right on the average per capita pollution. That’s both heartening (as it is growing) and distressing - it’s doing a lot but it’s clearly not enough.

Which brings us to democracy. I’ve been in China my entire adult life now, which is fucking weird to think about. And I pray to god that this is not the only way to get things done. For all the good it does (and it does do good) I’m with you on preferring democratic ideals and principles.

The fact is, I do think force is the answer, but not one directed from one country to another. I think a capitalist led democracy fails, and I don’t see things changing quick enough to matter. Why would it?

We have the info, we know what is happening, and our great grandkids won’t be sympathetic when we tell them we cared about the environment but someone splashed orange on the glass of a Van Gogh, or didn’t use the right tone when advocating for change. They won’t care while famine and disease ravage them and their throats are filled with tumours. They will hate us. Rightly so.

The morally correct path, to save the most lives and to give our kids a fair future, is likely an abhorrent one. Violence, not against a country, but against power structures. Civil unrest. Eco terrorism. Thats the stuff I feel comfortable typing out, but that’s the reality. We’re not bringing people around fast enough. Democracy changes by force and by constant growing civil disobedience or, bizarrely, you accept democracy can’t solve the problem.

But if you’re waiting for Labour or the Tories or the republicans or democrats to take action, or the greens to get into power…

It’s not gonna happen.

So that's good, we now have more than two paths to success:

- Grassroots leading to critical mass leading to regulation and laws and capital change of focus

- Magic

- Violent overthrow of power structures (and establishment of...something else more pleasant and environmentally friendly?)

I prefer the former! But as you say not going fast enough and may not even be achievable in time.

I don't believe in magic.

And violence is definitely gonna happen at some point but it will be haphazard and nasty and I'm not sure there's a plan in place for what happens after you flood the coalmine / destroy the factory / kill Bezos

The grass roots thing still has a whiff of the tail wagging the dog to me.

It just doesn't work like that, does it?

I think the politicians are more interested in what big business wants than what the plebs are bothered about

If the Greens start picking up more and more council seats, then Labour will start paying more attention to environmental issues. They shouldn't need to though, this should be freebies to Labour.

But if environment = what if Labour or what if Greens, then you’ve lost.

poprock wrote:

I think the theory is that our politicians have no backbone. They’ll only do something if they think it will help them get re-elected next time around. So they’ll only do something about the climate crisis if we, the voting public, show that we give a shit first.

Politicians on average act on behalf of the market.

Until the most lucrative action is to take environmentally sound decisions, the economy will power on towards the abyss. Growth must continue, apparently.

Again, has anyone read Ministry for the future? Cinty and funkstain have hit on some of the major concepts of it.

Another one is the idea of transforming carbon credits into an actual global currency supplanting the dollar, pound, euro, etc. Where value increases the more carbon dioxide you sequester or not emit in the first place.

Plastic not being recycled is an established thing, so I don't think your source matters too much on that.

It's a problem that's baffling to me. Build recycling plants in the UK, in places that have high unemployment. This creates jobs, and tackles the problem of plastic waste.

Or just ban the use of single use plastics, or tax them so producers use better alternatives.

Sorry. Tories.

acemuzzy wrote:

The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has been named to lead the COP28 global climate talks in Dubai

But of course

It's decisions like this that will make Extinction Rebellion successors even more determined.

Riot police never learned a thing from the battle at Agincourt

Anyone expect New Zealand to cop an extra tropical cyclone?

Looks absolutely devastating

Happy Thursday!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64815875

Quite weird, the slow march to awfulness we can all see coming. No government wants to do anything remotely drastic enough because they're still having a party over the border so why shouldn't we?