UKH

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/15/arron-banks-jokes-about-gre...

How does it feel to be standing shoulder to shoulder with a prat like that?

Shoulder to shoulder? I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

Funny how so many people feel threatened by Ms Thunberg.

Have you watched "Brexit: The uncivil war" yet?

Know The Enemy

Imagine being the man thinks that's either appropriate or funny. What a spunk funnel, as if we needed a reminder.

jk

This doesn't outrage me. Its far milder than I assume he thinks in his own head anyway.

Honestly I think far worse for him and his pals. I'm just not tweeting / playing to my mob (I don't have one...as yet)

It's a funny psychological trait isn't it? Assuming certain beliefs because you believe other ones that are quite unrelated. While there is absolutely no connection between Brexit and climate change I'm expecting that shitface is a climate change sceptic, hence his needlessly cruel remark.

It's also sad of course, that people often side with one party or another because of one issue and then unthinkingly adopt the position of that party on a host of other issues which they've never really thought about. It means, for example, that people who are in favour of leaving the EU gradually become disposed to privatising the NHS for example because they think Nigel Farage is right about Europe and he is also sceptical of the NHS.

The bigger question is why does everything climate emergency related still require a physical presence at these meetings? What has she learnt in the past few months that expands the message etc.  

 She's a 16 yr old, all she has are words. It can be video conferenced globally. It's not as if she is personally demonstrating a piece of carbon capturing equipment or similar. 

There's an amazing number of people , probably serious about wanting to save the planet,  who still don't seem to see that by video conferencing and explaining why you are choosing this form of communication over face-to-face, you are passing on a useful message to people who  say they"have to fly " for their job. Far more useful than undertaking a boat trip, though probably less glamorous and photo-worthy.

Plus when she gets there, how many so called climate activists will needlessly travel across the USA to see her! 

Because (unfortunately) that is how the people and the press work. People (and the press) react to events and to other (famous) people. The wider public has ignored climate change for years, the really annoying extinction rebellion raised the profile massively. Hopefully, this was mostly in a good way, but it did risk a negative response. Similarly, a team of experienced climate scientists delivering a new paper has far less impact with the general public than a 16 year old celebrity sailing across the ocean to a conference in New York. It's a shame in this case that people aren't generally more logical, but they're not.

The main objective of her participation in the meeting is not to offer wise words, which could indeed be done by video link. Rather it's to increase the profile of the issues involved and get people from the person in the street right up to prominent national figures to take note of and participate in the overall discussion. In that sense her boat journey has already been a success.

It's not ideas she's delivering, she says herself she doesn't have solutions, all she asks is those in power learn what we already know, commission the work required to fill the gaps and develop solutions. Those people don't listen to her, they don't work for her so instead she's there inspiring others to stand up and be counted, the little people those in power need to vote for them, to buy their products and services. To do that it still really helps to be seen on the biggest stages. That's how the world works, rail against it or work with it.

jk

This is insane.  Another Danny Baker or Prince Phillip.  Who knows what he was thinking.

Every word seized upon and meaning assumed, no denial or retraction permitted (He did).

Imagine how delighted you would be if he called her "a spunk funnel".

Are you appropriate or funny ?

I mean, Even Julia Hartley Brewer* tweeted that it crossed the line. Imagine, finding yourself looking up at Julia on the moral high ground......

*She obviously had her own pop at Greta.

Some of the biggest companies in the world that have created some of the richest people in the world are all internet based or online, Microsoft, PayPal, Amazon, Google, Facebook... It's a myth to say the world works face to face. She could easily push for some world record of the most people or countries involved in a video conference. 

How many people in the UK have permanently changed their ways since her visit or have they now drifted back to old habits? Well meaning sentiment won't change anything. People get outraged for 5 mins then revert to normal practice. 

No doubt Emma T will fly over from Hollywood to NY to support her. 

I accept this is ukc, the hypocritical capital where we claim to love the planet then travel around it climbing adding to the problrm etc. I accept that I am part of the problem and simply supporting a kid on a sailing holiday doesn't clear my conscience. 

I think that's pretty clearly signalled by what he wrote. As ever though, while I'm sure we could get into another of those batshit interminable 'debates' over whether indefensible words you wish to defend have meaning or not, frankly I'd rather cut haemorrhoids out with a rusty spoon. Knock yourself out having the last word.

No, but then I'm not a powerful public figure menacing a teenage girl, if I were then I'd expect and deserve to be mercilessly hauled over the coals.

jk.

I don't think it changes anything, people will like a few green comments on Facebook, buy less carrier bags etc.. Then still fly several times a years and buy more clothes to fill a bulging wardrobe etc. I think the human conscience can be relieved by doing very little compared to the scale of change required. 

Big companies won't change without shareholder pressure. As soon as you tell the public / share holders they'll be less well off, their green ethics dwindle. 

Yes it's PR but I personally don't think there is any lasting impact. 

 'Freak. Accident. August. Yacht.' Not really difficult. 

Yeah, apparently it was a joke. The Bloom-Benjamin defence. 

You're pretty much proving Eric9points er... point. 

Ah, I see, we're just getting all frothy at the mouth and a bit triggered that your man Banks wished ill on a 16 years old girl. 

He's probably trying to see the sense of it all. There isn't any. Banks said what he said. On twitter. He's a massive tw*t. 

Do you think she would get much press coverage for video conferences ? A trip across the Atlantic in a high tech yacht has resulted in a lot of coverage. Of course there's a risk that the journey becomes more of a story than the message she wants to put across but so far the message is still being reported.

Will press coverage result in long term meaningful change? 

Every reasonably educated person in the world knows what we should be doing, most just choose not to. 

The only thing that will improve things is harsh government policy, which is exceedingly unlikely. You can have as many once in hundred year weather events as you like, folk won't change. 

I don't know why you are so cynical about her.  She has been hugely successful in raising awareness of climate issues - far beyond the many large organisations dedicated to  just that.  No one would have been interested in her video conferencing, sailing to the meeting becomes a widely publicized story  raises awareness.

Many, I would say.  I am certainly more thoughtful about Co2 emissions personally than a year ago, in part because of her.  I am not unusual, so globally I imagine she has affected the behaviour of millions and had a significant effect.

I'm finding it difficult to google details about the return leg of the trip.

Surely you have been to plenty of meetings/conferences? A physical presence is needed for the informal and backroom meetings, the serendipious meetings and connections made etc.

aka drinking and shagging...

She isn't a business leader, a political leader, an innovator of green tech etc.. She is 16yr old with some mild learning difficulties, with pushy parents who just by chance have a book to sell the whole time she has been doing these protests. Feel free to call me a cynic.

Ps. I'm not a climate change denier I just don't think she's going to change anything either. 

I've made a decision to stop flying unless I really need to which is 6 to 8 flights a year. I've become religious on recycling and nearly fully cut out my meat consumption since wee Greta started making a noise. Of course the nightmare reports about the 6th mass extinction of species, plight of the bees etc has helped. 

A. Banks thinks the comment he made is now ' a joke', but I don't see anything funny there at all and I like a laugh, I mean if his comment came true then some right wing sociopathic meme appeared showing the irony of 'extinction warrior becomes extinct by insisting on not polluting the planet', then this is the mentality he would find fun, a laugh. That guy is Mr Brexit as well, a hero to millions of us, perhaps that is the real joke. 

He wishes harm to come to a 16 year old

The meaning is crystal clear

Irrelevant

Are you seriously trying to defend Banks?

It has in other areas, why is environmentalism different? It is no longer acceptable to drive drunk or use racial slurs for example, that didn't happen overnight nor as the consequence of any single event/protest/campaigner, it happened incrementally yet the change when viewed with hindsight even over a relatively short period of time, absolutely is meaningful.

The big gains come once incrementally public support has grown to a critical mass sufficient to willingly and knowingly support a government tasked with and capable of delivering radical economic reform. Whether this is harsh or not is a choice. If, as Thatcher did before, we choose to abandon those whose interests are harmed then the process will be slower, the result less complete, less stable. There are other options.

jk

You are cynical. And defeatist.

I'm pleased we have people like Ms Thunberg to counter the attitudes you embody.

Thatcher what does she have to with it... 

The people who will suffer are the millions or even a billion elsewhere around the world who will be either drowning, starving or forced to fight for their survival.

In the big scheme of things a modest drop in our standard of living, a slight change of lifestyle , less consumerism etc. In the West would help massively. I think we in the West have lost our perspective a little when you consider how many people live at near sea level in Bangladesh and you are worried about Thatcher style UK policy. 

Not defeatist at all. But that doesn't mean I can't have a different view of a green activitst to other people. 

Hot air balloon.

It's what conferences, conventions and seminars mostly generate an excess of. 

The closure of the coalmines and heavy industry provides a small scale prototype for the kind of industrial/economic revolution we need. Thatcher's treatment of the people and communities blighted by her policies provides a salutary lesson on the long term costs of skipping the short term investment necessary to complete the reform.

And if we wish to prevent that change will be needed here, in the bits of the world likely to remain habitable for longer, where life is currently pretty comfortable. We have to get that change right, it basically can't hurt or we won't do it. That's possible but not easy.

I think you misunderstand me.

jk

This may be of interest

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02425-7?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20190815...

Hear hear! I'm interested in Labour's Green New Deal as a model for making the first feeble steps to decarbonise.

You have 70 million people on a small island, who as a culture drive, shop, fly and eat in varying orders... and you think change can't or won't be painful? Optimism?

They have been open about the fact that they haven't arranged this yet.  Doubt she'll be flying.

I think it doesn't have to be. I don't think any of this will be easy and I don't suppose we'll get it right at every step, it might not even prove possible but I think we should try and we have a fighting chance of building a better world in the process.

jk

He later excused his words on the grounds of having been joking.

That makes it more than clear that he knew exactly what he was thinking, what he was writing and what would be the likely reaction.

It's power projection through bullying, masquerading as harmless schoolyard buffoonery, with the intention of gaining the support of modern day neanderthals thought to be useful idiots at the ballot box.

I think the best thing that can be done with/about Mr Banks is to ignore him.

As the saying goes, "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about ......."

Dave

You realise all of those companies spend millions of pounds a year flying people around the world to talk to people because they think it's a more effective way to get some parts of their message across. Internet based doesn't mean what you think it means.

There are a few billion folk in the world who desperately want to attain the lifestyle the West was enjoying in even the 60s or 70s. They are prepared to risk their lives swimming across the sea to achieve it.

The world can't reach these goals unless we really cut back, or some seriously amazing science and innovation makes it possible. Whoever either discovers these innovations or even just funds them will do exceedingly well from it. This is probably the trick people like Banks are missing, because through their anti climate change beliefs, or the desire for instant profit, they aren't seeing the longer term benefits of investing in these sectors. 

It doesn't have to mean what you think it means either.

Perhaps we don't have a choice, even if flying around the world is fun, interesting, exotic etc.  Perhaps it just needs cutting right back, until we discover some new ways to fuel it. 

I view it in much the same way that I viewed the comment someone made to the effect that if he was on a ledge with Brave Dave, the latter would slip off the ledge before five minutes was out. Not very pleasant but few people would take it seriously.

Come to think of it he probably was just expressing genuine concern for her wellbeing and safety. My mistake. 

I'm no fan of Banks.   Just object to HATE threads.   Whoever they're attacking.

I see the connection as being that Climate Change is a reminder of how threats and challenges, and therefore solutions, are supranational  and require supranational cooperation to resolve. This is directly contrary to the populist-nationalist agenda with its over emphasis on national sovereignty, national self determinism and border control. Adherants to that pop-nat paradigm will instinctively reject that supranationalism, and the irrelevence of the nation state, that climate change imposes. 

I don't see any signs that he feels threatened by her. I think he just doesn't like her

Maybe he should articulate that dislike instead of joking about her having an accident at sea then.

 UKC users would be hypocritical to condemn others outside the forum for making jokes about accidents and deaths. After all, this is where you can joke about being trampled to death by cows and being killed by unfriendly locals without much in the way of disapproval.

A better analogy would be people passing comments about inflicting violence on the likes of Farage, etc. and up to and including wishing that he had died in a plane crash.
Funnily enough, some of those people are contributors to this very thread...

Not excusing the comment from Banks though as it's obviously nasty and just shows what sort of person he is. 

OK I'll explain: obviously Banks is a very nasty bloke who, just to show what a no nonsense man of the people he is, has made a tasteless joke about this young climate change campaigner. My main point was to challenge people who like Brexit, but who are also bona fide, to think about the company they keep. If you are on the same side as Banks, Farage, Trump, Putin, Bolton, Bannon, Yaxley-Lennon and Esther McVey, maybe, just maybe, you might be barking up the wrong tree. 

If I say that Aaron Banks is a nasty c.nt on UKC does it matter that I haven't contributed millions of pounds to a national campaign of disinformation?

Calling someone a nasty c*nt on UKC is perfectly fine and you might even be right in the case of Banks.
However, if people are criticising him for making a comment about a yachting accident, then surely that same criticism should be levelled at people that make similar comments about plane accidents?

No, that was the whole point of my post, Banks has gained power and influence by contributing money to parties and campaigns, he knows what effect his Twitter verbal shittings will have.

He's part of a movement. He should be called out.

Get ready to be accused of you-know-What.......     

Wonder how many of those jumping to her defence were celebrating when Thatcher died. It often seems that if you have anti capitalist, or far left, anti meat, or a climate agenda that many people often feel it justifies the same actions they condemn others they disagree with doing. 

Wrong, stop being divisive.

Is UKC expected to display a uniform body of opinion?

I hope not. But let's argue the issues.

ha ha - that's exactly you but opposite. Click on a link and I pretty much know what your view is on the subject before I click.

E

A carbon neutral trip in a £3m yatch

Yes I am cynical... 

Another forum I go on has people outraged about this from Banks...the same people were jumping to Jo Brands defence of her acid in the face of Farage joke.....and before anyone asks I think Farage is a complete arsehole, as is Banks. 

Except that Farage is another nasty c***, whereas Thunberg is an innocent girl who just wants to save the planet.

I was thinking just the other day how regularly people say that it would have been a good thing if someone had put a bullet in Hitler's head in about 1936. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I wonder which of today's crowd people will be saying that about in about 2100.

Yes well she was wrong too.

Oh come on, Farage is not Hitler, he is a monumental tosser no doubt but wishing him harm rather defeats the purpose of living in a liberal democracy... 

Maybe, just highlighting how some people's moral compass flip flops depending on who the 'victim' is... 

I didn't say he was and he probably won't become Hitler, but nor was Hitler in the early thirties what he was by, say 1941. As I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Having said that, I admit that I have fantasised about dispatching Farage in various imaginative ways.  Don't worry, I have no plans to actually do so.

Yes. False equivalence. Like the racist dicks on Facebook outraged at anti-facist violence. It's ok to punch a nazi I promise.

E

Rather think Hitler had showed some bad traits by the early thirties and Mein Kampf was written in the mid-twenties.
Comparing Farage to Hitler is absurd.

Don't worry I guarantee you 100% he won't become Hitler...enjoy your fantasies. 

OK. Early twenties then (my history is shaky........ ). Anyway, I think you're missing my point (or in actual fact are agreeing with it!) which is that we don't know who of today's mere nasty c**** (such as Farage) might be tomorrow's Hitler.

Mr Factor!  My comments about Farage were based on the harm he intends to my wife's status and my own family's welfare through his rotten Brexit campaign, telling lies and profiting from things wrong in this country for other reasons.  He's a hateful bastard, unlike the schoolgirl.

I wasn't joking about the plane accident - we'd have had less to worry about if he'd died

Farage is a harmful enemy.  Your "analogy" is incorrect and fancifully contrived

Aspergers is not a learning disability.

I enjoyed that fantasy too, except my condom was coated in sandpaper; for his displeasure...

Nicotine-stained weeping-manfrog. 

I think that Corbyn could cause me to be worse off if he ever gets to be PM and I also think that he is manipulating Brexit to try and obtain his aim of becoming PM.  In that respect, is he any different to Farage?
Do I wish him any harm?
No, of course not! He is just a person with a different viewpoint to mine and if he gets into power, then so be it. 
Wishing people dead because they have different political beliefs to yourself is just weird beyond belief. 
 

That's a bit of a quibble: the National Autistic Society concedes that people with Aspergers are likely to have learning                   " difficulties"   (Summo's word) as opposed to there being the "disability"  (your word) associated with some other forms of autism.

Fair point on the choice of word, but the fact is that someone with Aspergers does not necessarily have learning difficulties. And, as far as I know, Thunberg doesn't have any. I think some people assume she does (or would like to think she does).

Are you? 

The problem with your position on climate change is you think you have reached the correct conclusion i.e. people won't change and nothing can be done. I suspect you believe many environmental activists to be naive and a little innocent in their thinking. 

But is also true that you can be the biggest cynic in the world and change, get beyond cynicism, to still try, still believe, still hope. It is the same spirit that got man on the moon. The same spirit that got Joe Simpson off Siula Grande or drives random acts of kindness. It's being human. 

Greta Thunberg, is on the right side. She has that spirit. It's why she is popular. I met her last week. She's a cool kid. She's only repeating what thousands of scientists are saying. 

Being cool won't change anything. For most of the UK climate change is out of sight out of mind. Yes people will do little things to make themselves feel good but meaningful change won't happen. It will of course be even worse in the USA, especially with trump.

I'll do what I can personally, buy it's sadly meaningless. Folk will still fly just to pursue sports or to sit in the sun and fly home again etc.. we will enjoy our goods made on the other side of the planet, eat out of season food, take the car 1 mile just because it might rain. 

Whilst this isn't a motoring forum it is dedicated to people who happily travel very often just for pleasure. I understand it eases consciences to support Greta.  But our efforts are futile without massive global government changes in policy that would have huge impacts just as the west is about to re-enter a recession. 

You get to the point in your last sentence and you are in total agreement with Extinction Rebellion, the school strikers and Greta Thunberg. They are all clear, like you,  that individual actions are not working. We need system change, by governments. 

I never said I was against the ideology. Only that her methods aren't going to change anything. 

No. I don't agree with extinction rebellion. No country could be carbon neutral by 2025 unless they literally closed every port, airport and turned off the lights. It's the stuff of uneducated dreamers. 

Only system change won't happen. The public wouldn't even vote for a 1% tax increase to the fund the nhs that might save their life tomorrow. They'll never vote for the kind of measures to reduce climate impact in 50 years, they simply don't care. Oh they'll like Gretas sailing holiday on Facebook posts, whilst lying on their sun lounger in Spain, but that's about it. 

Summo - you no doubt do a bit though? It's the little things that add up.

Summo picked his words carefully to be derogatory, yet just about acceptable to most people. Having read his posts here for a long time, and knowing his political leanings, I would read more negativity into his choice of words than perhaps some of the more lefty types here would. Personally I find what he wrote less acceptable than jokes about sailing accidents, as he has deliberately used the fact she has Aspergers. Whatever your limited personal understanding of Aspergers is, picked up from a none-too-thorough Google search, the fact is that the criteria for diagnosis include intelligence at least within the normal range. Furthermore some people with Aspergers have intelligence and learning capacity well above normal and to label someone like that as having "learning difficulties", when you know how that catch-all phrase is misunderstood is below the belt. 

People are ruled by fear. Fear of what they might loose.  Things will change when maintaining the status quo is obviously more fearful than the fear of the changes we need to make. The 'Overton window' takes a lot of moving but Greta is helping to shift it. The fact that there is a long thread about her on here proves that.  

Like it!

Shall add that to my revised Profanisaurus.

I don't know which thread or contributors you're referring to but there is a difference between speculating about the very different course history could have taken had Farage died in that crash and a well connected public figure menacing a teenage girl via twitter with what could at worst be read as a thinly veiled threat to her life.

The movement Thunberg seeks to inspire poses a serious threat to the extractive/exploitative economy as we know it, those who've grown fat and powerful off the back of it will act ruthlessly protect their investments. Threats should not be taken lightly or normalised, we've seen where that gets us with the anti-immigrant gun violence Trump has inspired with his callous rabble rousing and closer to home with the murder of Jo Cox. 

jk

I actually would say I do quite a lot, be it how we shop, eat, holiday.... but relative to the scale of the problem it's also near nothing. 

You'd have said the same of Martin Luther King or Mandela I have no doubt. From one miserable cynic to another, it's worth remembering we're often wrong.

Look at the rate of change a publicly recognised existential threat can drive. Take the early cold war for example, the absurd public spending the US was able to sustain on the 'space race' and the huge technological and economic revolution that drove. That was possible because they were able to pull together as a society against a real and universal threat. Step one in dealing with climate change is public understanding of the threat. That's a long hard battle to be fought against an almost impossibly well funded blizzard of misinformation and obfuscation.

Sure, 2025 is ambitious to the point of being all-but impossible but would Apollo have ever delivered had Kennedy's 'We choose...' speech  been vaguer, less inspirational, less ridiculous, had he vowed to go to the moon 'sometime soon'. I think maybe not. Should we set inspirational goals we're likely to miss or goals we can hit that won't deliver the change we need? Personally I think it takes a bit of both.

Public opinion shifts incrementally when people with vision, courage and drive make the sustained effort to shift it. When public opinion shifts policy can too, they don't have to be perfectly in sync but you can't move either too far from the other in a democracy. Campaigners raising awareness AND accelerated programs of science, engineering, economic and social reform are what we need. Neither alone can deliver our descendants a habitable world.

Thunberg is doing her bit magnificently. If you don't like it perhaps you should just grumble into your recycling and stay out of the way.

jk

I picked my words very deliberately because I've read articles in the past stating that it's probable she has been manipulate by her mother (who wrote a book on green agendas) and her tree hugging friend. Whilst Greta will claim it's all her idea, we are born empty vessels and her views will have been impacted by those nearest to her.

Around a year ago, long before the UK had even heard of her, her mother was pushing her into the eye of the Swedish press. Day 1 of Gretas solo school protest in sweden (allegedly Gretas ideas) her mother coordinated a photographer from the national press to photograph her. Just by chance her mother changed the cover of her book to a picture of Greta. 

Of course that doesn't mean climate change isn't real. Just that her mother's book sales are doing rather well out of her daughter's efforts and I'm more sceptical of the chances of people making real ling term changes. 

My sentence should have read "some" people with Aspergers are likely to have learning difficulties. Does that make any difference?

2035 is all but impossible, when you consider what is involved. But it's a reasonable goal and if it slips 5 or 10 years then it would be ok. 

2025 is pointless rhetoric. If you set a goal that's clearly impossible folk won't even try, as it's clearly not achievable. 

The examples you give are things that were seen and felt by most people; so there was a motive. Most people in the West don't see or feel the impact of the climate change to be motivated, it's something they see on tv. They will feel it in the future and by then it will be too late. 

Oh dear. You're now likely to pull down "the wrath of Coel" who will fill this thread with 127 posts full of the same links telling you why this isn't so. It's ALL in her genes don't you know? She just inherited the green gene from her mother's genome...

Are either of your parents slightly reactionary cynics also? I'm sure Coel will tell us that is a heritable trait as well.

The real story is that someone who passionately believes in inspiring the kind change that most would agree with, is having a major impact on the spreading of that message across the western world.

Should we give a toss whether someone else's book sales contributed to, or has resulted from, that story?

Which is the whole point of campaigners like Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and those that paved the way before them. You really don't listen do you.

jk

I'll cope.

Do know how much water is used to make just one pair of jeans!? Loads.  

Strangely enough no. That blows the genes theory. They are analytical though and would probably look at the wider a picture.

People can form their own views. But perhaps they need to consider her home life, travels, influences and education before she started the school protests. 

Oh I do. I just don't think it will change anyone's minds long term until it starts to hurt them physically or financially. 

I'm not doubting the message only its impact.

Yes if a child is or has been manipulate for her parents selfish benefit. 

Perhaps you could explain how climate change is different from all the other seemingly intractable issues that have gone before it which have required a radical shift in public perception which was in reality delivered incrementally?

Take your pick: universal suffrage, apartheid, abolition of slavery, unionisation, racial discrimination, homophobic discrimination, drink driving, the loosening of the church's grip on power...

And no, I'm not interested in a whiny cynical lecture about those battles being only partially won, I want to know why you think climate change is uniquely intractable.

jk

Come on people, this thread is getting tedious, can we please get it back on track; we need far more obscene insults to describe Arron Banks.

I am baffled how you think change is going to come about without public awareness, concern and demand. Thunberg has singlehandedly (and so what if it is with a helping hand from her mum) massively increased all three.

Odious, lying, self serving, unprincipled c***.

I actually found myself muttering that to myself about Boris Johnson while out hill walking yesterday, but it applies here equally well I think.

Because all the people who have the power to change it aren't or won't be impacted by it. Until that changes nothing else will. 

The kind of changes need. Double or triple flight surcharges, put up tax on on all fossil fuel, and so on. Massive investment in green tech...

It would hit economies hard, cost most of us money and cause a rapid change of lifestyle. Of course it needs to happen I just don't think even a hundred speeches will convince people. Just my view. You are entitled to yours. 

The scientific evidence is there. Governments should just implement it as it will be decades befor public pressure is sufficient to do anything meaningful and claim it was the will of the people. 

The UK green party just destroyed any credibility it had with its women only cabinet views. 

The problem with 99% of the campaigners is they are too extreme. It's always all or nothing. You change minds by drip feeding ideas, slow but sure. Attenborough style. Folk get turned off being shouted at that they need to be doing x or y. 

Sometimes, sometimes minds change quickly - galvanised by an event or a cause. You're surprisingly absolutist for someone so opposed to absolutes.

They will be when the wider population takes an interest, when public opinion shifts. This is how change happens in the face of entrenched opposition. Nobody is saying it will be easy.

Gods forbid!

What in your opinion is an economy for?

Those changes don't have to be for the worse, having less spending power to buy things weighs against more time to spend with your kids for example.

I don't think a hundred speeches will cut it either but if you don't start you can't finish.

jk

The Kyoto Agreement was signed in 1997 - over 20 years ago. In that time, nothing meaningful has happened, despite the wealth of evidence and as you say, the drip feeding of ideas. In that time, the fossil fuel lobbyists have been hard at work, promoting climate change denial and doing all they can - with considerable success - to hold back the need for action. There has been no sense of urgency. Your way is a continuation of that. 

The great thing about Greta Thunberg is that she doesn't shout or get personal. She answers insults with information and an implacable realism. Prats like Banks and Farage have no answer to it except their usual "bad boy" shtick. It just makes them look as small as they really are. Greta is a giant compared to the whole pack of climate denying crooks.

How do you see things improving? 

I think it will take a generation for wholesale public perception to shift. By which time many will have the sea lapping at the ankles. 

Kyoto, paris and other agreements weren't exactly that harsh either. But folk are astounding selfish or the case of the USA blinkered. In other countries they see anything green as a threat to their wealth, the same wealth that maintains their economic and military power. 

I just don't think she has the clout, influence... to change things. 

Which is true. But do you think that has any impact on say a family flying off to costa del whatever tomorrow morning for a holiday? Many probably don't even know who Banks is. 

Things will improve when there are wholesale changes to energy production and energy use, driven by regulations. 

We've had a generation since Kyoto, and nothing meaningful has happened. 

Yes, obviously. Your point being? 

She doesn't have clout. She is raising awareness. Doing things your way has so far achieved nothing. Quite why you feel the need to be critical of someone who is at least trying to make a difference is beyond me. 

Loads has happened since 1997. Most importantly in one of the least expected places from back then.... China.

Completely agree. Look at these Extinction Rebellion clowns.....they want the UK to be carbon neutral by 2025. Yeah we can do that as long as you want society to collapse to something approaching medieval times.

In 1997, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 360ppm. It's currently over 410ppm. You're right - loads has happened. We've allowed a 14% increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2, and it is continuing to rise at more 2ppm per year. 

In that time, China has become the largest emitter of CO2 in the world. 

Here's one way some of those people might start to feel the impact fairly quickly:

https://www.sciencealert.com/climate-change-is-already-making-air-travel-bu...

No? Ok, so how did *you* become aware of the threat climate change poses and the need to change?

No but they'll be well aware of the climate denying mouthpiece he funnels squeaky clean money to.

jk

Regress to medieval times? That's a bit extreme! The problem is not really one of societal collapse, more one of convincing people that they need to do without certain things. The political complexities that ensue are the real issue, especially with the current populist mood.

This is one of the most depressingly stupid aspects of the whole situation. Developing carbon-neutral systems is a massive set of business opportunities. As someone once said, the Stone Age didn't end because the world ran out of stones. It ended because people came up with better ways of doing things. 

Carbon Neutral in 6 years....do you understand what this would mean for our economy, it would collapse. Forget about education for your children, a functioning NHS or any sense of law and order as supermarket shelfs are empty.

The inherent problem with the current solutions are that they focus on reducing demand, this simply won't happen with a growing world population and desire from us to all have nice comfortable lives. Governments can't change the mindset of people, it has to come from people themselves and ultimately we don't want to change enough to make a difference.....how many on here would forgo ever flying again unless in an emergency to help save the planet? 

That's before you even get onto the poor developing nations who want better lives for their people, how are you going to suggest they cut back on the use of fossil fuels whilst we in the west lead lives they can only dream of?

Yes once carbon neutral systems become economically viable globally they will be taken up by countries, until then they won't....the issue is how can change be brought about whilst not impacting our standard of living, because like it or not we won't make substantial sacrifices to 'save the planet'....human beings since the time we moved out of living in caves have had a desire to improve their lives...it has got us to where we are now and without it we would still be living in those caves.

Although I lived in Finland for a couple of years in the 90s, I moved there at the start of 2001 and only came back to the UK 5 years ago. Although I was a regular visitor to the UK for those 14 years, there are certain things I didn't notice change until I came back. Windpower was one of them - driving to North Wales, or going east from here to the Lincolnshire coast, the scale of offshore wind becomes pretty obvious. But drive down the M1 to London and you see loads of turbines now too.

When I used to fly down from Helsinki to Paris or Brussels in my old job I remember thinking on clear days from west Sweden onwards you see windfarms the whole way. Driving last summer back to Finland (crossed to Dunkirk) again, until you turn off from the coast to cross Sweden to Stockholm, you are rarely out of sight of wind turbines.

I know wind isn't the sole answer, and blah blah blah - lots of issues with it - but in two decades it has replaced a significant part of generation capacity for many NW European countries. Yes, maybe we need to build more nuclear power still for the base load and all that, but I grew up in a small town with its own coal powered station. We're not burning coal to make electricity anymore - surely that's an improvement.

Indeed, and that is not done by taking the approach that it's all too hard so we shouldn't even try, which is what seems to the position of some. As is often said, perfection is the enemy of good. Carbon neutral by 2025 is clearly not going to happen, but the dates sets the tone for the scale of urgency that is needed, having wasted the past 20 years. 

worse off how?

Financially?  That isn't the case here, it's far more.

You are right sweden's standard tariff electricty is 80% non fossil fuel. The countries that have pursued this haven't done it because of Paris, Kyoto etc it's been steady progression over many decades, primarily to power their own growth as they weren't blessed (or cursed) with large reserves of fossil fuels. The cost though is heavier, we pay a connection fee of £30 a month, plus tariffs aren't cheap and there is an energy tax on top, then 25% vat. 

I presume in your royal 'we' you aren't counting Germany which continues to open cast mine and burn some of the most polluting forms of coal. Good old eu literal power house leading the way! 

I really don't see why the economy would collapse simply because there was a change in energy sources and a scaling down of some types of production and activity. I'm not sure what you're basing this on - I take you're assuming that there would be no alternative forms of economic activity? 

There will be lead in time of cost versus return. Fracked gas is credited with the usa's recession recovery. It's incredibly cheap, can power existing plants etc. Without any changes to infra structure. Green energy requires many changes.

Imagine the costs of replacing the uks obsession of a gas boiler in every house, which was madness in the first place. 

Even if everyone had an electric car, the costs of initially putting in a charging network are huge and the extra power demands. These costs are met by either taxpayers or consumers. One way or another we'll be paying. 

It's far from impossible and will happen, but there is a lead in time for costs to be absorbed. Power points will appear everywhere and petrol stations will slowly scale down and close. 

£~3-4k/household/10years, about the same as replacing a tired gas combi with a new gas combi like we do now. This is hardly impossible. In parallel if we are shifting to electrically driven heat pumps we need insulation upgrades, generating and distribution capacity. That's a business opportunity.

The charging network largely exists, it's the same as the 'oven' network or the 'electric shower' network. You might have noticed it last time you visited, wires on big sticks. Sure it needs some work at the user interface and and a management layer to make it more robust and versatile but that's not the end of the world. We build stuff all the time, really big ambitious expensive stuff

Of course nothing happens instantly but those costs are also opportunities.

jk

6 years to become carbon neutral, just think about it.... lets take just one aspect of our economy, supply of goods.

How are haulage trucks going to move en masse to electric engines in 6 years....if they don't how can we be carbon neutral?.... answer we can't. So if we want to be carbon neutral in 2025 we are going to have a monumental problem with food, medicine, consumer goods etc etc supplies. How long before society collapses?

Sorry but it is lunacy.

So if can't be achieved in 6 years (which I agree it can't), what do you do? Do you throw up your hands in horror and do nothing saying it's all too hard, do you pretend it's not a problem at all because climate change is just a bunch of tree-huggers, do you pretend it's someone else's problem and do nothing, or do you accept there's a problem and work out how best to deal with it? 

All you seem to be doing is saying it can't be done in 6 years so there's no point doing anything. And that's one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in. 

It's a business opportunity for some, which means a cost for others. UK housing stock isn't that energy efficient and will need additional work for air sourced and low temp water systems. £4k is optimistic.

Will the current(cheap pun) big sticks and wires cope if everyone switched to electric heating systems and home charging of Eva? Add in industry, end of all diesel trains and trucks etc  it's not a small project. 

So not really remotely feasible to be carbon neutral in 6 years then. More like 20.

You prioritise. Target the biggest polluters first. Bunker oil for example. Then excessive unecessary travel and so on. Whilst you plan and begin the longer term infra structure projects that will take years to build and fund. 

Things like a new runway at Heathrow shouldn't even be a discussion point.  

I could ditch the car, I could not fly, I could not drive for pleasure even if I didn't ditch the car (i,.e. trips out), I could keep the heating off in winter and wear loads of clothes to keep warm, I could not buy consumer goods as I don't really need most of them, I could not buy my kids toys because they don't really need them.....all this may have some impact and if we all did it then it would but it would also screw our economy....but I don't because doing significant things are going to significantly impact my life and that of my family. I am a realist....and even if we did all this and our economy was not impacted (impossible but lets play along) you will still have China, India and other developing nations belting out carbon emissions. 

So in all honestly I do nothing beyond recycling...

I am saying talk is cheap, 99% of people won't make changes if it significantly impacts their lifestyles.

Dismally inadequate for the required urgency. Emissions from shipping amount to about 2-3% of total emissions - hardly one of the 'biggest polluters'.

But stuff like cruise ship pollution serves no purpose. It could be curtailed over night and all that steel recycled. It's an easy hit with near immediate results. 

Which is why it needs to be led by governments driving low-carbon or carbon-neutral policies. As the director of the International Energy Agency has said, 'the world’s energy destiny lies with decisions and policies made by governments.'

That is is one way of looking at it. What proportion of emissions from shipping results from cruise ships? Another way of looking at it is the idea that it's a sticking plaster that makes you feel good by pretending that you're doing something meaningful, whilst ignoring the cancer that requires major surgery. 

Please, if you're going to comment, try to inform yourself a little better than pretending that bunker oil is one of the 'biggest polluters'. 

You have to compare the situation with what could have been. China was predicted back then to be (and indeed turned out to be) a rapidly growing developing economy and instead of meeting all that growth with coal or oil fuelled generation it is now the leading photovoltaics generator in the world and has cut the cost of such generation with economies of scale. Coal use went from huge growth to pretty flat in the last 5 years. Electric vehicle use is growing very fast. 

Compare with 'green' Germany for instance in 2016, or the USA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production...

Indeed but these have to be economically viable, if not they won't be popular with the electorate if they are paying more for fuel,  flights, household energy or more for consumer goods due to increased business costs.

I think our governments approach to being carbon neutral by 2050 is realistic, if environmentalists think it can be done quicker then get some plans knocked up and peer reviewed by credible academics.... not peddle pie in the sky ideas that have no basis in reality.

Once that has been dealt with we can deal with the elephant in the room....China, India, the USA and the rest.

And yet China is responsible for over one quarter of global CO2 emissions. It may not be as bad as it could have been, but it is still nowhere near good enough. Of course, there was no incentive for China to do anything about its emissions when it could see the industrialised West was failing to do anything meaningful, with Bush's refusal to ratify Kyoto sending the strongest possible signal. 

If the message Greta wanted to send was “regular people should give up on travel unless they have a millionaire friend who can lend them a sailboat”, she succeeded.

Much easier to engage in cheap virtue signalling than to find solutions to complex problems.

That said, Aaron banks is a tw*t of the highest order, but that we knew. 

I give up. You seem determined to put obstacles in the way of progress and sow division. So be it. 

Cruise ship pollution serves exactly the same purpose as Octavia trip to Scotland pollution or jet flight to Kalymnos pollution. 

I think thats a silly view, effectivly blaming China for being big and letting off developed western countries who one could argue should know much better. China are way ahead of where we expected them to be in renewables and the pace of change is fast there and they are also the biggest factor in dropping prices for many green developments elsewhere. The US in contrast are going backwards under Trump. On those 2016 numbers US electricity generation is more than 2/3rds of that of China for about 1/4 of its population.

What obstacles? Is anything I have said about human nature incorrect? 

I am agreeing with you that once carbon neutral economies are viable they will come about, until then they won't because of human nature. I am not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

You can't really have it both ways. Yes, China has helped by reducing the costs of photovoltaics, and it does also have to be recognised the massive amount of offshoring of emissions to China by Western industries. But it still remains a fact that China is responsible for more than one quarter of all global CO2 emissions. 

The USA does have a massive responsibility, both historically and contemporaneously, as do the EU countries, and India and Japan. Simply saying China isn't as bad it might have been doesn't help anyone. 

You are putting things the wrong way round. The way to make things work will be to make carbon-intensive economies and industries uncompetitive. For this to happen, governments have to make the right decisions. This may or may not have popular appeal, but it already happens - most of the cost the petrol in your car is tax of one sort or another, and there are already numerous other taxes which are designed to benefit the environment.

There are myriad initiatives that could be undertaken to improve matters, but which successive governments have shied away from or have closed down - energy requirements for new buildings should be much tougher, but governments are too keen to kowtow to developers and housebuilders than to require them to do the right thing, public transport is deprioritised in favour of cars, freight is carried by carbon-intensive lorries because the rail infrastructure has been made sufficiently resilient to cope with the requirements of a modern economy.  These are issues on which governments need to lead, not follow, in order that the right things are done.  

I think its vital what they have done in slowing the growing catastrophe when the US have done much less. Since 2016 they are acceleratating improvements and Trump is trying to change to reverse gear. If they hadn't unexpectedly changed we might  have had additional greenhouse gases similar to the contribution of the EU.

Well... I was supposed to be leading in the Alps this summer but the gigs were cancelled due to lack of bookings. Explain that. And don't say it's because the clients had heard what kind of leader I am.

They're not but why set such a specific goal you can't achieve? They don't all need to be electric to hit nett zero operating carbon emissions. Why not start at the start by cutting back on what we're moving and making sure what we do move moves efficiently, much of what we move is a serious environmental problem in and of itself (disposable fashion for example). Shift some of it to rail, move some of it on bio-fuel, get some electric haulage coming online toward the end of the period. Offset what you can't eliminate, it's a MASSIVELY ambitious goal, offsetting is going to play a big part in the transition. Get that freight moving around towns in electric vans from town edge distribution hubs, clean the air up locally and segregate people from HGVs, deliver tangible benefits with the intangibles and the costs.

Yeah yeah, I know each of those steps poses huge new challenges (and offers new opportunities) but did anyone ever think it would be easy? Hell no. Is it doable? See below.

Doing nothing is lunacy.

It's an enormous challenge for sure, our generation's 'Moon shot'. Squared. To be honest I'd go so far as to agree 2025 is unattainable, 2035 probably is too, not because we lack the technical capability and economic power but because we currently lack the necessary social cohesion and purpose necessary to marshal them. However each year we delay starting in earnest leaves us with more to do under more pressure, a faltering start is better than none at all.

Extinction Rebellion's goals aren't scientific/engineering/planning goals, they're public awareness and guess what, here we are talking about it. Win.

jk

Extinction Rebellion's Demand No 2
ACT NOW: Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.

Poor summer, weak currency, general financial uncertainty across europe etc. Or last season of game of thrones, new poldark series, Correlation isn't always causation. 

It does, but bunker oil is the absolute worst of the worst. As said earlier we are all guilty in one form or another. 

Sulphur content aside since we're discussing CO2, after the refining and transport energy costs of road and aviation fuel are factored in I'm surprised, do you have anything to back that up?

jk

What's your point, do you think because they made demands of government they expected to be directly setting the policy agenda?

They're a campaign group, they can demand what they like of government but without raising public awareness and garnering public support the government can safely ignore them at best trample them at worst. With public awareness and support politicians seeking re/election need to start listening then acting.

We're here, talking about their demands, wondering what is and isn't attainable, how it might be done who might be bet placed to deliver it (or resist it if you're that way inclined). In those terms their protest was successful.

jk

As you mention above, it's not just the carbon. Bunker oil is the dregs of the refining process and it's responsible for a host of air quality problems. 

I was never suggesting it's the worst carbon polluter, but it is an easily solvable one. The brailsford game of marginal gains but with carbon and air pollution. 

It will take a decade plus to remove some of the bigger causes, that doesn't mean the smaller ones should be ignored until then. 

Your argument was that the 2025 figure wasn't a planning goal of Extinction Rebellion and was just some sort of number purely for public awareness reasons.
I would say that making such an explicit demand on their website means that it is very much a planning goal of Extinction Rebellion and it is pretty much the very essence of what they want to achieve. 

This is just your assumptions. How do you know what is possible? The main problem is, as ever, the politics. Road transport is just low on policy agendas at the moment. 

'The brailsford game of marginal gains but with carbon and air pollution. '

Son of the bloke who invented the first purpose designed climbing nut, John Brailsford and the MOAC nut. Talented family!

Indeed. Guide and he also wrote the guidebook for the ecrins. 

No it is not as assumption, it is not possible by 2025.... but ok lets assume it is and all vehicles in 2025 are electric....how do you plan to get the power needed for these vehicles AND all our other energy requirements to come from non carbon sources?

The only possible option here would be a gigantic uplift in the use of nuclear power and we are currently planning to retire half of our power plants by 2025...... So we reverse this decision, OK.... but then it takes 4-5 year to build one, so we somehow fast track planning to build say 50 new ones (fancy one anywhere near you, you might not  have a choice),  get them operating by 2025 and connected to the grid.....then we have to source enough uranium to power them.

You are living in fantasy land if you think this is remotely possible....

It might be what they want, all other things being equal, who wouldn't. It's an ambitious goal, hugely so to the point of being quite simply incredible, take it at face value and you have to assume you're dealing with fools and dreamers. You aren't. It's quite clearly intended more to grab attention and instil a sense of real urgency than to be taken literally.

jk

Attention grabbing stunts are usually seen for what they are and , as such, often fail to instil a sense of real urgency. They tend to evoke a sense of cynicism instead, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the audience.

That's certainly a risk. What's your alternative?

jk

I don't have one.

I'll go with last season of Game of Thrones 

My issue is not that I think 2025 is a realistic target but that you are over-claiming. Unless you have the gift of prophecy you cannot say with such absolute certainty that making road transport carbon-neutral is impossible. You are not looking at the full range of factors involved but are focusing on the technological aspects. You haven't considered the possibilities of shifting to alternative forms of transport for instance, or the possible impact of logistical improvements, especially in less developed countries. Personally I don't think it's likely that we could implement the full range of changes that would be necessary in that timescale, but that's due to a shortage of data and political will. 

I am not over claiming anything, we simply cannot move to a carbon neutral economy by 2025 without it collapsing.

 I never said moving to it ultimately is impossible...I have admitted that a 2050 target is realistic.

Tell me how would we build the sources of the necessary power and then deliver it to all stakeholders throughout the UK in 6 years.....do you understand the cost even if we had the actual resources in terms of manpower to build the infrastructure needed.....and how are you going to shift our use of motor vehicles to electric in 6 years?!!

It has absolutely nothing to do with shortage of data (whatever this means) or political will.

I said it before but its worth repeating, to achieve a rapid shift to nett zero carbon we will be heavily reliant on offsetting in the early stages. What looks technologically and economically impossible becomes merely very bloody difficult then. Still, 6 years is a silly time frame, we'll still be smack in the middle of brexit.

Jk

We can't offset anywhere near the amount required to hit a 2025 target. 

So really you are saying she shouldn’t try to change opinions, policy and practice. Where would we be if everyone had that take on life?

It’s collapsing anyway.

At the end of the day, there is no other solution but blood, sweat and tears.

If you’re worried about the economic consequences (and you should be) then consider this, every penny we don’t spend on reducing carbon emission now is essentially a debt with a high interest rate that’s increasing every single day. 

Now, what’s the sensible to do, continue accumulating a debt with exponentially increasing interests, or take the hit now ? My preference is clearly for the latter, because

1) it’s vastly cheaper

2) Putting your ecological debt on future generation is morally corrupt.

Now of course the issue we have is that no democratic government would want to impose the blood sweat and tears that his required on their own people, and their short term electoral incentives are not aligned with this at all.

I think there are things we can do though, in particular in terms of taxation, a punishing but progressive carbon tax coupled with a regressive system of incentive for carbon emission reduction could go some way. 

There is no inherent reason why moving to a carbon-neutral economy should cause economic collapse. There are economic opportunities as well as costs in this. More generally, the key issues are social, cultural and political - is this country likely to have the will to make the necessary changes in this short time-scale? That's where I'm pessimistic. The monumental distraction of Brexit adds to my pessimism, and I'd suggest is a more likely cause of economic collapse. 

That’s true, at the end of the day what creates economic growth is what creates value. Value doesn’t need to be purely utilitarian.

For example many people are very happy paying 2000£ for a Louis Vuitton handbag. The value add comes from the simple fact that the consumer sees value in the brand.

So in fact the economic issue can be partially  adressed with cultural factors: if reducing their carbon footprint is what people demand, then everything we do towards meeting that demand will actually increase economic growth.

Brexit is an economic sideshow that will of course be blamed for everything. 

China is slowing down. Germany and others in europe have shrunk in the last quarter, USA 2 and 10yr yields have inverted which has only ever happened prior to recession. Add in government debt reaching new highs, personal borrowing the same.. there is really nothing economic to be overly positive about. 

Decarboning, will cost initially and there will have to be yet more borrowing, taxation likely used as an incentive to change lifestyle, many economies won't cope. Any flex they had was used 10 years ago and they've not yet recovered. 

When people are jobless etc. They won't be prepared to make further sacrifices for something like the climate. 

True. But i don't see any signs that people will start to value time, health and happiness more; and big brands, materialism, status less.

Actually I think you’re wrong on three counts:

1) it’s not necessarily about time, health and happiness. These are good goals but not necessary goals.

2) big brands can actually help, businesses have recognised the fact that now people want to be seen to be environmentally conscious. People will buy a Tesla not because it’s value for money (it isn’t) but because they can brag to their friends about how environmentally conscious they are.

3) Materialism, in the western world, is actually in steep decline. People spend less and less of their money on stuff and more and more on services.

Brexit isn't just an economic sideshow, even if you don't believe figures suggesting no-deal will cause an 8% shrinkage of the economy. It's a political distraction and a major source of disunity in the country. How can a divided nation focus on the climate crisis?

That's not the same example as a hand bag you have though. 

What about houses, people are still prepared to spend more on a new sofa, tv, kitchen, bathroom.. than on insulating their home, despite this feature lasting forever. 

Often holidays to places just for bragging rights, usually involving air travel? 

It would be good if you are correct of course, but even there is a decline in materialism at doubt it will be significant enough to make a difference. 

I never said moving to a carbon neutral economy would cause economic collapse. It can't be done in 6 years without causing economic collapse...it can't be done. I have explained why it can't, we don't have the means or resources to make such a fundamental change in such a short time span. 

Saying it is a lack of will does not change cold hard facts....your insistence that all it requires is belief reminds me of the nonsense spouted by Boris about Brexit. 

Maybe, but if you look at our total material consumption, our total use of materials (factoring import/exports) is almost the same as it was in 1989, despite the economy having tripled in size since. It has peaked in 2001 and since has actually fallen.

so we seem to have in fact done what many environmentalists said was impossible: we’ve decoupled economic growth from material consumption. In fact it’s rather obvious but this shows it empirically.

I think it probably already does a massive difference, as per the above.

I expect the trend to continue, hopefully. interestingly the amount of calories we eat is decreasing as well, as is the amount of of meat. 

Will we all have to wear plastic shoes when there is no leather?

You are correct however, as explained above, the more you wait and the slower you are the harder the economic collapse will be, and the cost accumulate not linearly with time, but exponentially.

So it depends on what you want, a severe hit on the economy now, or a much harder hit in 20, 30 years, or worse, total utter ruin.

In a nutshell, the true cost of decarbonisation depends on how you value your and your children’s well-being in future decades.

In the future we’ll all be wearing crocs made of recycled trash. Kill me now please.

Who is we?

Perhaps there is a correlation with various economies with negative growth or border line recession? 

Who is we? Obesity in many countries isn't declining although that could be a lack of activity, not food consumption related.

reminds me of the flipflops made of old car tyres that are available in some countries.

There is a difference between cold hard facts and assertions. You have been making assertions about the future, which of course can't be facts. As for 'insistence that all it requires is belief', I have not at any point said that. 

In the UK

No.

if you look at the UK, although obesity is increasing, cal consumed per capita is going down. You can have a growing minority that consumes too much whilst having the majority consuming less. Not to mention more sedentary lifestyle so less calories expended. Bad from a public health perspective, but from a purely environmental point of view it doesn’t really matter.

Well, you could make them and sell them to hipsters for £50 a pair with a bit of social media marketing, whilst actually getting paid to get rid of old car tyres.

Just a golden business idea I handed you there

edit: they are already doing it: https://www.solerebels.com/pages/recycled-tire-soles. And they are vegan. Yes, vegan shoes.

kill me now again.

So the uk's 70m are consuming less. What about 2 billion people in Asia? 

Depends precisely on what is eaten. Out of season produce shipped around the world, or produce that is watered from aquifers that take decades to refill. 

Of course, but that simply wasn’t the point. The point is that it’s perfectly possible to have a growing economy with consuming less goods and energy.

I don’t really see what that has to do with the amount of calories consumed.

Now here is my GM idea of the future.    Human horny skin farming, tailored to your own DNA.  Imagine, a pair of shoes, fitting like a glove and made of your own cultured skin!  Grown to order, pigmentation and patterning, not to say patina, chosen from a catalogue.

You heard it first here.   Clothing would also be possible - you could wear OwnSkin trousers and waistcoat.  Would that be Vegan?  or Vegan (as in from Vega)

I think we heard it in a culture novel first 😏

aw shucks!