Why are certain people completely apathetic or opposed to the idea of tackling climate change?

[Simon11]

I have seen it mention on a few forums here on this issue, but population control will have a far bigger impact than the majority of the solutions proposed above.

Limiting all couples around the world to having two children would save a huge amount of emissions, resources and costs yet none of the environmental groups seem to flag this.

Offering free condoms by the governments would make a huge difference across the world plus reduce food famine, poverty ect

 

[dangie]

For people who drive for very short journeys, a better way to encourage them to walk to would be to emphasise that it is good for their own personal health. People I think are more likely to change their behaviour if they can see a direct personal benefit to them. In this case reducing emissions would then merely be a beneficial side effect.

I think everyone already knows what is good for their personal health. Good food, more fruit & veg, less fast foods etc, and more exercise. The information has been out there for decades. I have a neighbour whose most meals arrive by Deliveroo. Getting them to change would be nigh on impossible.

 

[GS250]

Well...when developers build in areas known for flooding....and hundreds of thousands of 'holiday apartments' are built in huge forestry areas with little mitigation against fires.

What do you think the outcome will be?

It doesn't help when the narrative is shoved down our throats with careless choice of words by the media. 'Weather bomb' and referencing the latest standard Sumner disappointment as something out of the first few minutes of Flash Gordon. When you shout too loud and treat the public like kids don't be surprised when they stop listening.

 

[Yew]

How can it be anything but rubbish when it's grown in a laboratory, would you take any chemicals you happen to find as I wouldn't

Do you have vinegar when you go to the chip shop? That's just industrial acetic acid and food colouring.

 

[Sorcerer]

I have seen it mention on a few forums here on this issue, but population control will have a far bigger impact than the majority of the solutions proposed above.

Limiting all couples around the world to having two children would save a huge amount of emissions, resources and costs yet none of the environmental groups seem to flag this.

Offering free condoms by the governments would make a huge difference across the world plus reduce food famine, poverty ect

How are you going to enforce such a restriction and what will be the consequences for breaking it?

 

[Simon11]

At least start with sharing information on the environmental impact of having further children so people are aware- while at it, the financial cost too!

Walking rather than drive down the road has little impact compared to deciding to have two, rather than 3+ kids.

 

[GS250]

How are you going to enforce such a restriction and what will be the consequences for breaking it?

Aren't couples in general having less kids world over? Or you could go further and say there are now less couples world over.

 

[Silenos]

Aren't couples in general having less kids world over? Or you could go further and say there are now less couples world over.

In fact, we are likely, at least in Europe, to see calls from the right for bigger families (at least if they are the approved sort of families). Look at that ridiculous popinjay Rees-Mogg.

Conservative calls for women to have more babies hide pernicious motives | Kenan Malik

Boosting birthrates to protect racial identity has a long and shameful history

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sorcerer]

At least start with sharing information on the environmental impact of having further children so people are aware- while at it, the financial cost too!

I generally agree with this because it benefits people on both individual and societal levels, but some people inevitably won't care, which is why I ask how you can enforce it. It's easier to put restrictions on cars and replace it with public transit projects, and replace domestic airlines with high-speed rail, or at the very least drastically reduce the market shares like seen in Italy. But it will be a lot harder to ensure people have less children which is why I think we should not focus too much on trying to actively control population numbers.

Aren't couples in general having less kids world over? Or you could go further and say there are now less couples world over.

In terms of birth rates all over the world, the statistics by the World Population Review show developing countries to have higher rates than developed countries (if the link doesn't work, just Google "birth rate by country" and it should be the first result), but the global trend is that there is a global decrease in birth rates compared to previous years. The most surprising ones to me though were the Islamic countries given that Islam places high value on family units, but there might be more to it than what I understand.

 

[birchesgreen]

How are you going to enforce such a restriction and what will be the consequences for breaking it?

I could tell you but it would probably make your eyes water.

 

[AM9]

I have seen it mention on a few forums here on this issue, but population control will have a far bigger impact than the majority of the solutions proposed above.

Limiting all couples around the world to having two children would save a huge amount of emissions, resources and costs yet none of the environmental groups seem to flag this.

Offering free condoms by the governments would make a huge difference across the world plus reduce food famine, poverty ect

For those that think that population control is a good idea, maybe they should consider that it would need to be first enforced in countries where the envirnmental impact is the highest. So that means those near the top of the per-capita table of:

CO2 emissions - e.g. Qatar, Canada, Australia, USA, ,Japan​

then there's those nations where the following impact the most at global level:

fresh water consumption (essentially potable water even if it is wasted on golf courses and washing cars)​

water pollution (from even the most modern industries)​

food consumption​

oil products consumption (including all that petrochemical products using consumable plastics, e.g. paints and adhesives)​

So, even if those who are worst in environmental terms per capita do agree to limit their birthrates, there will be negligible benefit for at least 25 years*, so there we are 2050, little change from current carbon emissions and pollution levels. Not really what is needed now.

* apart from babies 'in the pipeline', the most recent born will be expanding their individual environmental impact until they are full adults

 

[The Ham]

I have seen it mention on a few forums here on this issue, but population control will have a far bigger impact than the majority of the solutions proposed above.

Limiting all couples around the world to having two children would save a huge amount of emissions, resources and costs yet none of the environmental groups seem to flag this.

Offering free condoms by the governments would make a huge difference across the world plus reduce food famine, poverty ect

Other than most of the countries with above average (per capita) emissions are often places where the population is fairly static, or if it is growing is down to a mix of an aging population and immigration.

If we were to reduce the number of children in developing nations then the overall impact would be fairly limited.

Take for example a Mexican family there could be 4 of them and it still be smaller than 1 American. If that American reduced their emissions by 1/4 (to about what the UK value was about 30 years ago, so they would hardly be living in the dark ages, nor having to do without foreign holidays for environmental reasons) that would have a bigger impact than limiting the birth rate of Mexicans.

However at 3.61 tons, Mexico is still fairly high compared to other nations, the 47th lowest nation (out of 209) had a rate of 0.49 tons, meaning that they could have 30 people and still not ready the same value as one American, by the time you get to the lowest 26th country (0.2 tones) that's 75 people to one American.

Whilst the numbers are better when compared to a British person the 47th lowest country could still be 11 people and the 26th lowest could still be 28 people.

The bottom 26 contributes have getting on for 0.5bn people between them and around 1.1bn between the bottom 47 countries.

Compare this to the top 10 countries which have about 60 million people and all add over 16 tons per person (or over double the worldwide average).

For those that think that population control is a good idea, maybe they should consider that it would need to be first enforced in countries where the envirnmental impact is the highest. So that means those near the top of the per-capita table of:

CO2 emissions - e.g. Qatar, Canada, Australia, USA, ,Japan​

then there's those nations where the following impact the most at global level:

fresh water consumption (essentially potable water even if it is wasted on golf courses and washing cars)​

water pollution (from even the most modern industries)​

food consumption​

oil products consumption (including all that petrochemical products using consumable plastics, e.g. paints and adhesives)​

So, even if those who are worst in environmental terms per capita do agree to limit their birthrates, there will be negligible benefit for at least 25 years*, so there we are 2050, little change from current carbon emissions and pollution levels. Not really what is needed now.

* apart from babies 'in the pipeline', the most recent born will be expanding their individual environmental impact until they are full adults

Canada would already have a falling population if it wasn't trying so hard to attract people to live there.

However this does highlight that limiting births would be fairly pointless, in that countries with large emissions would likely draw people from lower emission countries and therefore the impact would be fairly limited (they would likely manage this, at they are likely to offer dreams of wealth).

 

[cb a1]

It’s obvious that we need to take drastic action to prevent a 2 degree temperature rise within the next few decades, but it’s also clear that there are some people who are completely apathetic to the idea that we need to do something about it. From my observation, it seems that the majority of reasons for not taking action are down to economics. After all, without the industrialisation that increased our GDP, there wouldn’t have been any additional greenhouse gases in the first place.

I have a few theories as to why some British citizens might not want to take action, although it’s highly unlikely that all of these will apply to most people. Please note however that this should not be seen as a list of the benefits of climate change, and that glamorisation of something which causes serious harm to the planet should be discouraged.

• They do not want to give up possessions (car, boiler etc) that they have worked hard for
• They believe the ultimate aim of the green lobby will destroy capitalism and lead to everybody living in caves
• Measures to tackle climate change bear an additional cost to the consumer
• A warmer planet will boost the UK tourism economy with more people opting to holiday there
• Lower import costs, since warmer climate crops such as bananas and cocoa can be grown in more regions
• More people die from cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths, so a warmer planet would reduce pressures on the NHS
• They don’t care about people living in poorer countries who are likely to suffer the most from climate change
• They see climate refugees as a way of boosting the economy
• They think it’s solely the responsibility of organisations (oil giants, motor manufacturers etc) who have contributed to it in the first place, so feel no need to take action
• Increased profits from oil companies can be used to fund more space research, with the end goal being to find another Earth-like planet in the event that our own becomes uninhabitable

Can you think of any other reasons?

This article from a few years ago did a typology of 12 reasons for Climate Change delay - https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...limate-delay/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7

I think all of them have come up in the course of this thread.

It feels to me like the ultimate form of the Tragedy of the Commons - a concept that goes back to at least Aristotle.

 

[Enthusiast]

I don’t know what climate change activists want, I haven’t met most of them and I’m not one of them. I know I personally wouldn’t take seriously anyone who thinks that millions of people all have a single analysis of the issue, or whose grasp of written English was so weak that they were unfamiliar with synecdoche.

Whether you intended it as synecdoche or not I'm not sure - perhaps you should have made it clearer. But alongside all popular holiday destinations supposedly being on fire, you mentioned two perfectly unambiguous strategies which supported the reduction in emissions (insulating homes and eating less meat). Those, I imagine you inteded to be taken at face value so what are readers supposed to think of the third: "...and all those places you want to go on foreign holidays are currently on fire.".

In fact, in recent weeks just a small area of two Greek Islands and a similarly small area in Portugal were "on fire". Wildfires have been prevalent in southern Europe in the summer for so long as I can remember and I have been in some areas whilst they were in progress. It gets warm in that part of the world in July and the vegetation tends to dry out by then. It is not a recent phenomenon. Any stupidity on the part of those there (such as lighting bonfires or barbecues in open spaces) is likely to cause problems, climate change or not. Whether or not you intended your remark to be taken literally, it carried an hysterical overtone.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Whether you intended it as synecdoche or not I'm not sure - perhaps you should have made it clearer. But alongside all popular holiday destinations supposedly being on fire, you mentioned two perfectly unambiguous strategies which supported the reduction in emissions (insulating homes and eating less meat). Those, I imagine you inteded to be taken at face value so what are readers supposed to think of the third: "...and all those places you want to go on foreign holidays are currently on fire.".

In fact, in recent weeks just a small area of two Greek Islands and a similarly small area in Portugal were "on fire". Wildfires have been prevalent in southern Europe in the summer for so long as I can remember and I have been in some areas whilst they were in progress. It gets warm in that part of the world in July and the vegetation tends to dry out by then. It is not a recent phenomenon. Any stupidity on the part of those there (such as lighting bonfires or barbecues in open spaces) is likely to cause problems, climate change or not. Whether or not you intended your remark to be taken literally, it carried an hysterical overtone.

Yes I’ve got two sets of friends who have just landed on Greek islands, to my surprise they haven’t walked in to their own burning death.

 

[Bantamzen]

Whether you intended it as synecdoche or not I'm not sure - perhaps you should have made it clearer. But alongside all popular holiday destinations supposedly being on fire, you mentioned two perfectly unambiguous strategies which supported the reduction in emissions (insulating homes and eating less meat). Those, I imagine you inteded to be taken at face value so what are readers supposed to think of the third: "...and all those places you want to go on foreign holidays are currently on fire.".

In fact, in recent weeks just a small area of two Greek Islands and a similarly small area in Portugal were "on fire". Wildfires have been prevalent in southern Europe in the summer for so long as I can remember and I have been in some areas whilst they were in progress. It gets warm in that part of the world in July and the vegetation tends to dry out by then. It is not a recent phenomenon. Any stupidity on the part of those there (such as lighting bonfires or barbecues in open spaces) is likely to cause problems, climate change or not. Whether or not you intended your remark to be taken literally, it carried an hysterical overtone.

Indeed, and what has been particularly interesting is the focus on the fires and not the cause of the extreme heat. As I understand it the North Atlantic Jet Stream is currently further south than it would usually be at this time of year, trapping a couple of high pressures moving north from Africa and resulting in the hotter, Saharan air also becoming trapped. The jet stream's position is also the reason we've had a crap summer, indeed much of Northern Europe has because we have all be sitting in the Polar air mass instead of the warmer and drier Subtropical air mass.

It is of course possible that the jet stream being in a more southerly position may be a symptom of man made climate change, though this is impossible to pin down to one event, and it is not entirely unusual for it to be to the south of us as many crappy British summers have shown. Yes new high temperatures have been recorded in some parts, but as you say much of the Mediterranean gets very hot, dry and even arid meaning that fires are not actually that unusual. Its certainly something to monitor and have some concern about, but it is not the beginning of the end that some people seem to believe.

 

[birchesgreen]

It is of course possible that the jet stream being in a more southerly position may be a symptom of man made climate change, though this is impossible to pin down to one event, and it is not entirely unusual for it to be to the south of us as many crappy British summers have shown. Yes new high temperatures have been recorded in some parts, but as you say much of the Mediterranean gets very hot, dry and even arid meaning that fires are not actually that unusual. Its certainly something to monitor and have some concern about, but it is not the beginning of the end that some people seem to believe.

One unusual, rare and extreme weather event is indeed not the end of the world, but when these things start happening multiple times a year thats when we should be getting concerned surely?

 

[MikeWM]

You won’t be ‘forced’. You’ll just be priced out.

I'm not convinced. There are already 'experts' calling for creating artificial scarcity and rationing, for example (and not just for meat!)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...etrol-energy-meat-slash-carbon-emissions.html

Scientists claim World War II-style RATIONING of petrol, energy and meat could help countries slash their carbon emissions 'rapidly and fairly'

Climate change could be tackled with the help of a World War II-style rationing of petrol, meat and the energy people use in their homes, UK scientists say.

They claim that this would help countries to slash their greenhouse gas emissions 'rapidly and fairly'.

Researchers from the University of Leeds also said that governments could restrict the number of long-haul flights people make in a year or 'limit the amount of petrol one can buy in a month'.

Not really. Processed meat has an incontrovertible link to cancer (IARC Category 1). For red meat, the link is less well established (category 2a). Personally I think the evidence for an effect of saturated fats from meat or dairy on cardiovascular health is weak, but some experts draw different conclusions.

Or you can find some other 'experts' who say things like this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...at-scientists-british-beef-livestock-farming/

Meat is crucial for human health, scientists warn

...
“In fact, removing fresh meat and dairy from diets would harm human health. Women, children, the elderly and low income would be particularly negatively impacted.”

No, but it does suggest that improving insulation in the British housing stock (something campaigners have been calling for for years) would hugely reduce fuel use and expenditure (and thus emissions). And hot air rises, last I checked - put your bedrooms downstairs.

Perhaps, but as I've said before we need to be a bit careful about retrofitting insulation to everything in sight - consider the issues we had with cavity wall insulation causing damp. Personally I like to live in a house with a good balance of insulation and ventilation, so it is also easy to cool down in the summer.

Also, I've lived in places where I've slept on the ground floor. I grew to hate it, for a number of reasons. I'm not doing that again.

It’s the people who actually live there who are saying the conditions are changing for the worse, so I’m inclined to accept their view of it.

Do you know a representative sample of the people who live in those places, or are you just getting that from the media (which is pushing a narrative)?

I would disagree. When I look at the usual suspects inveighing against climate change I see precisely the people who are doing well out of the system.

Who? All the governments are behind it. All the global institutions are behind it. All the billionaires are behind it. Look at how much money Al Gore and John Kerry have managed to make (and bought, err, beachfront properties, an interesting choice if so deeply concerned about rising sea levels).

That’s a bit like saying, other people are doing well out of committing murder, we should all do the same.

Only if you compare these things to murder! And artificially impoverishing ourselves will *certainly* cost lives.

--

However China is changing what is doing

Perhaps so, but it is very hard to look at this graph and say anything other than China is the main issue here



except perhaps to point out that the UK has *already* achieved quite a lot over the last 30 years or so in cutting emissions.

Indeed, I was to keep what I said short (ish), clearly I meant the planet with it's current ecosystems cope with

Yes, I know and clearly we couldn't cope with the ecosystem of Venus even though the planet itself would survive, that wasn't my point. But we've had far greater concentrations of CO2 in the past history of the planet, that may have resulted en somewhat of a different ecosystem but I'm not sure why we couldn't adapt if necessary.

Humans did originally evolve in rather warmer conditions than 90-odd% of us are now used to. While I personally am very uncomfortable with heat, we can certainly *cope* with it.

The best way is to get them to think that their friends and neighbours are doing you want them to do and so encourage them to replicate it.

But from the graph about you can see the UK has already been doing that. It doesn't seem to have helped the situation in India or China very much.

 

[nlogax]

except perhaps to point out that the UK has *already* achieved quite a lot over the last 30 years or so in cutting emissions.

Outside of our very obvious and successful move to nuclear and renewables I do wonder if much of that achievement is to do with our getting out of 'the general business of making stuff'.

 

[railfan99]

Because people are selfish and stupid: they do not think that climate change will have much effect in their lifetime and they are not prepared to give up any of their pleasures to (try and) prevent something that won’t inconvenience them, even if it will have a catastrophic effect on people already alive.

Would you be a member by any chance of the infamous Club of Rome?

I have faith in God we'll make largely good choices, even if we stumble along the way. Having just one child as the Club of Rome advocated, for instance, is doomsaying writ large. Even Marxist China has reversed that ill-advised policy.

Mankind has shown a wonderful ability to pull people out of poverty over the years. This continues.

I am proud in Australia to own thermal coal shares as it powers the world, and contributes to the raising of material living standards in nations as varied as mainland China, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and many others too numerous to mention.

The mainland Chinese and India may have disparate political systems (and no, I don't support Marxism) but each continues to rely heavily on thermal coal. They are building many new efficient HELE power stations. Good on them!

An Indian villager may correctly regard electrification as a huge advance for his or her community as it facilitates entrepreneurship.

Are you saying these people (many of whom I briefly observed during rail travel in India in 2019) ought be denied the creature comforts that you and I take for granted?

The climate has always changed naturally and will continue to do so.

Why should the West hobble itself with higher energy prices via so-called 'renewables' that are useless on still hot nights in my nation? Only small-scale nuclear, thermal coal and natural gas-fired power stations work in such conditions. The West has a vital role to play in assisting those less fortunate to progress, just as we've done since the Industrial Revolution.

 

[MikeWM]

Outside of our very obvious and successful move to nuclear and renewables I do wonder if much of that achievement is to do with our getting out of 'the general business of making stuff'.

Probably in part, yes, which perhaps isn't a good thing - especially if that stuff is instead created elsewhere and then shipped here, which 'artifically' inflates the emissions figures of elsewhere and deflates those of here.

But that itself shows a problem - we're likely to see a lot of 'creative accounting' in this drive towards net zero, which allows us to crow about how moral and wonderful we are, while in many cases we're just moving the 'problem' around. The richer the individual/company, the more such options will be available to them. That's one of the reasons I'm very wary of carbon allowances and carbon credits - in many respects, just like covid policies did, it ends up with a massive movement of capital from the poor and the middle-class to the rich.

 

[Purple Train]

Answering the OP's question - simply because they believe that climate change can be totally explained away by natural phenomena - sunspots (I presume this is linked to the solar cycle), cows, a misinterpretation of Genesis 8:21, and the most entertaining argument I have heard (from someone who politically makes Suella Braverman look like a champion of the working class) was "it's ridiculous that a single gas could have so much effect on the environment".

I think the scaremongering actions of sections of the green lobby also disillusion them as well - in terms of the correct approach to take, for the most part I agree with @Bantamzen. A certain degree of pragmatism is required to make sure we don't change too much too soon and consequently make a huge mess. We can shoot at the target all we like, but we need to make sure it doesn't rebound and hit us in the foot. And, assuming I live an averagely-long life, I shall probably be in a position to judge how successful the world's efforts, if indeed there have been any by the 2080s, have been in combatting this issue.

 

[AndrewE]

Answering the OP's question - simply because they believe that climate change can be totally explained away by natural phenomena - sunspots (I presume this is linked to the solar cycle), cows, a misinterpretation of Genesis 8:21, and the most entertaining argument I have heard (from someone who politically makes Suella Braverman look like a champion of the working class) was "it's ridiculous that a single gas could have so much effect on the environment".

I think the scaremongering actions of sections of the green lobby also disillusion them as well - in terms of the correct approach to take, for the most part I agree with @Bantamzen. A certain degree of pragmatism is required to make sure we don't change too much too soon and consequently make a huge mess. We can shoot at the target all we like, but we need to make sure it doesn't rebound and hit us in the foot. And, assuming I live an averagely-long life, I shall probably be in a position to judge how successful the world's efforts, if indeed there have been any by the 2080s, have been in combatting this issue.

If you think scaremongering is going on then you must have good blinkers and earplugs! I have been aware of the warnings since the '70s and see the chaos all around us now as the absolute confirmation of what was feared back then. One of the first effects we were warned of was the Gulf Stream switching or stopping... which has recently been flagged as a possibly imminent event.

Some of the comments upthread are so breathtakingly selfish or insoucient that I guess they must be made by trolls, just trying to provoke.
No real problems? Tell that to the Alpine and Himalayan people suffering landslides and catastrophic floods, to the Pacific Islands about to disappear, to the people experiencing the effects of far worse and more frequent cyclones than we have ever seen...

 

[Purple Train]

If you think scaremongering is going on then you must have good blinkers and earplugs! I have been aware of the warnings since the '70s and see the chaos all around us now as the absolute confirmation of what was feared back then. One of the first effects we were warned of was the Gulf Stream switching or stopping... which has recently been flagged as a possibly imminent event.

I think you and I may possibly have different ideas of what I might be referring to as scaremongering. I'm mostly referring to the "we need to stop eating meat NOW"/"we need to close EVERY coal mine NOW"/"introduce a one/two child policy NOW"-type comments that are written in black and white. (By which I'm not denying that those policies would help, but that the benefits from introducing them gradually outweigh the combined benefits and harm from rushing them through in three seconds flat without thinking through the logistical consequences.)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

However China is changing what is doing, they're buying electric cars at double the percentage that we do, they are more to travel by rail over flying for medium/long(ish) distance travel within China, they are about to install more wind turbines than we have (and show no signs of slowing down) and many other things.

Citation needed there. Type "China electric car graveyards" into YouTube and see what comes up... also look at how many new coal-fired power plants they're building.

I wouldn't trust the Chinese government as far as I could throw them.

I have seen it mention on a few forums here on this issue, but population control will have a far bigger impact than the majority of the solutions proposed above.

Limiting all couples around the world to having two children would save a huge amount of emissions, resources and costs yet none of the environmental groups seem to flag this.

Offering free condoms by the governments would make a huge difference across the world plus reduce food famine, poverty ect

Ah yes... because restricting the number of children a couple can have worked so well for China didn't it...

How would you even enforce such a policy? What happens when a couple with two kids conceives a third time? Forced abortion? Forced adoption? Wow, what a wonderful utopia we'll have in the future...

If anything we need to incentivise those who can, to have more children.

 

[dakta]

Just come across this article....

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/wimbledon-school-crash-tyres-destroyed-134900695.html (I appreciate it's yahoo but there you go)

Tyres on at least 60 vehicles at a Land Rover dealership in Exeter have been ruined in retaliation over a crash in Wimbledon that killed two eight-year-old girls.

The group, known as the Tyre Extinguishers, posted a video online appearing to show someone with a drill at the Devon garage.

It comes after Nuria Sajjad and Selena Lau were killed when a Land Rover smashed through a fence into their school, The Study Prep, in Wimbledon on 6 July.

A number of others were injured.

A 46-year-old woman from Wimbledon was arrested at the scene on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving, and has since been bailed.

Tyre Extinguishers said in a statement: "Tyre Extinguishers destroyed all the tyres on at least 60 vehicles at Jaguar Exeter, Matford Way.

"SUVs are eight times more likely to kill children in crashes than smaller cars.

"This act of retaliation is intended as a peaceful and non-violent demonstration to draw attention to the presence of grossly-inappropriate private vehicles in our towns and cities."

It added: "Tyre Extinguishers firmly believes that their action is a necessary escalation to try and stop these vehicles from wrecking further lives and continuing to push the worsening climate crisis off the cliff edge.

Whilst the climate doesn't seem to be their primary motivation, it's interesting to see it's formed part of their justification.

So now we have a dealership having it's stock destroyed by 'peaceful' activists (I wonder how the destroyed tyres will be disposed of?) because a woman who was arrested for dangerous driving killed someone, and someone is using that for leverage in the 'large vehicles are bad for people and the environment' camp, I mean, you want to know people are apathetic, it's simple - some clearly just want any old excuse to do harm to people going about their business and we see it for what it is.

 

[duncanp]

Just come across this article....

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/wimbledon-school-crash-tyres-destroyed-134900695.html (I appreciate it's yahoo but there you go)



Whilst the climate doesn't seem to be their primary motivation, it's interesting to see it's formed part of their justification.

So now we have a dealership having it's stock destroyed by 'peaceful' activists (I wonder how the destroyed tyres will be disposed of?) because a woman who was arrested for dangerous driving killed someone, and someone is using that for leverage in the 'large vehicles are bad for people and the environment' camp, I mean, you want to know people are apathetic, it's simple - some clearly just want any old excuse to do harm to people going about their business and we see it for what it is.

I believe the incident in which the two girls were killed was caused by the actions of the driver, and has nothing whatsover to do with the vehicle's carbon emissions.

Even bikes and zero emissions electric vehicles can be lethal in the wrong hands.

But then facts have never bothered the climate change fanatics, have they?

 

[dakta]

I'd totally agree, as I understand it - though happy to be corrected - a woman was driving irresponsibly and two children were killed. The woman was arrested and is going through the process, and whilst I don't know if guilt was established it does not appear there is anything being levelled towards the type of vehicle, the maintenance of the vehicle, the condition of the vehicle or it's tyres etc.

I cannot see how this is any different from a truck driver driving like a buffoon and hurting/killing someone. Trucks are big too?

There is clearly, some people, who are trying to link things in a way that somehow legitimises doing harm to everyday people whilst coming across on the moral high ground. Other, decent standing people obviously see through this, which is why you get apathy. When the environment stops being a vehicle used by people as an excuse to become petty criminals, maybe we can start to have a sensible chat about things. But at the moment it's just apathy-fuel.

 

[birchesgreen]

Wasn't it likely that if she had been driving a normal car and not a Range Rover then she wouldn't have been able to get at where the children were? Or am i thinking of another case?

 

[duncanp]

Wasn't it likely that if she had been driving a normal car and not a Range Rover then she wouldn't have been able to get at where the children were? Or am i thinking of another case?

My understanding of the incident, as reported in several papers, was that the woman suffered "...a medical episode..." which caused her to lose control of the car.

I don't think anyone is in a position to say that the accident would not have happened had she been driving a different vehicle.

Since the full facts have not been established, no-one should be jumping to conclusions about the real causes of this incident, particularly as there may be legal proceedings in the future.

But such niceities are wasted on the climate change loonies, and to my mind it is utterly disgusting that they are seeking to use this terrible tragedy for their own highly debatable purposes.