July 6, 2024
Subscribe
The Real Crime Diary Blog Legal and Courtroom Are parties taking climate change seriously in the election?
Legal and Courtroom

Are parties taking climate change seriously in the election?

  • by
  • June 19, 2024
  • 48 Comments
  • Less than a minute
  • 12 Views
  • 2 weeks ago



Jackie Long: It’s a time when the climate is facing ever increasing chaos. Extreme weather, record heat waves, but instead of becoming a high profile election issue, it’s barely featured in the campaign at all.

(Subscribe:

In a moment we’ll hear from four of the main parties about their plans to tackle key targets like Net Zero and biodiversity.

First our Chief Correspondent Alex Thomson has been hearing from scientists and experts, on how well the UK has been faring so far.

———————–
Follow us:
Facebook –
Twitter –
TikTok –
Instagram –

source

Tags:

Share This Post:

48 Comments

  • Reply
    @Snipe_the_Hype June 19, 2024

    This is complete tosh. Yes let's cripple our economy to get green meanwhile China builds two new coal plants a week 😂😂 go moan at them!!!!!!!!!!

  • Reply
    @patrickfuchs3859 June 19, 2024

    The solution is extremely simple: decrease the human population by not having so many offspring. A lot of people on Earth have 6, 7, 8 or more kids… if everyone had two kids the population would naturally decrease. It took from the beginning of humanity over several million years until 1980 to get the population to 4 billion people and now, only 45 years have passed and we're up to 8 billion people. Population control is the biggest issue. We're like a bacterial colony in a petri dish and we've covered to entire surface… We're the number one global invasive species.

  • Reply
    @BillyTheKidCENTURION June 19, 2024

    The answer is……. no. Parties are not taking climate change seriously, because there is no "Climate Crisis". No increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, glacial melting…. and the list goes on. The people are waking up, and we are not buying it anymore.

  • Reply
    @MG-fr3tn June 19, 2024

    I've got more I get laid, entropy the young it's only the brain steam you have to impress.

  • Reply
    @MG-fr3tn June 19, 2024

    Science takes second place to brain steams, the children had a better chance with cv than the masses amegulars.
    Mind you all the scientist i know are hypicrits.
    Entropy is our biggest hope.

  • Reply
    @Debbie-henri June 19, 2024

    I seem to remember all of them being treated like they were important, crucial, our last chance, and all that – but these chimps who preside over us spend more time composing dramatic speeches rather than planning drastic action.
    A bit of talk the week before the meeting, pictures of politicians posing as they shake hands, maybe a week of talk about what they're going to do afterwards – if we're really lucky.
    Don't kid yourself, these politicians won't be motivated into doing anywhere near enough – as usual. Lots of them are being paid off by big businesses, especially fossil fuels, and money talks louder than the clear voice of climate change.
    It makes you wonder just how bad things need to get before the UK government gets off it's egotistical back end, stops thinking about itself for 5 minutes, and listen to what the people actually want.

  • Reply
    @stevenkillington5041 June 19, 2024

    Total bullshit you can't stop or change climate with our money

  • Reply
    @mikeharvey9811 June 19, 2024

    Why don’t you get Carolyn Lucas to challenge this woman. Rubbish. Barb

  • Reply
    @mikeharvey9811 June 19, 2024

    Our leaders are high on power and greed, they are not worthy of our vote….vote green. Barb

  • Reply
    @user-mk5rs2kc8c June 19, 2024

    The average global temperature in the last 550 million years since the Cambrian explosion is quite a bit higher than it is now. The world getting warmer is not going away from some sort of global climate standard, it is going BACK to the standard. The average temperature of the last 270 million years was much warmer than the last 40 million years, and we are still in the low range within the last 40 million years. The age of reptiles is beginning to come back, they will rule the Earth again. Mammals will once again become low profile, but won't become extinct. It's a long term cycle of changing animal class dominance due to climate conditions.

  • Reply
    @MrBenumea June 19, 2024

    So much buull$hit …still…so little time!!

  • Reply
    @DarylBaines June 19, 2024

    Lots of finger pointing … not good enough

  • Reply
    @MrBenumea June 19, 2024

    From the analysis and studies published by Mr. Belisario H Romo PhD 2020-2023

    This further reinforces the argument that attributing atmospheric temperature changing forcing to anthropogenic causes “is and absolutely ignorant, stupid and unsupported dogma,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the soil respiration, photosynthesis, trees and plants, continental rift, and oceans degassing (97.03% of CO2 equivalent emissions). Present technology can not "model" all these variable parameters not even in a magical mode. That's why 126 climate+ models are WRONG! A joke. A bad one.

    On top of which other major forcing have to be accounted for: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo …and of course, the main source of energy the Sun.

    Now beyond these considerations, we have physics, thermodynamics, and nuclear chemistry.

    To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12.

    Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2

    Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2

    Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2

    Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2

    Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2

    Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023:

    Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28%

    Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47%

    Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64%

    Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64%

    Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97%

    ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100%

    Conclusion:

    Natural earth's emissions of CO2 eq are in fact, 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions.

    Annual increments of 2.5 ppmv into the atmosphere include all sources.

    Since man-made or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, the unfeaceble results from the global ignorant + stupid policies of Net Zero CO2 are perverse, twisted, and fraudulent, since the retarded, childish, and silly absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage.

    Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen.

    Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~30-50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic coal, gas, and petroleum emissions combined.

    Conclusion: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo …and of course, the main source of energy the Sun (not included)

    The estimated temperature changes due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows:

    • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C

    • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C

    • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C

    • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C

    • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C

    https://arxiv.org/html/2406.07392v1

    Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase

    R. Lindzen

    Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A

    W. Happer

    Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A

    W. A. van Wijngaarden

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

    (June 11, 2024)

    Abstract

    Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted.

    If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F).

    For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F).

    Conclusion

    As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty.

    "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain.

    Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd.

    Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions.

    The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda.

    Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate.

    Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism.

    Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum.

    If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity—an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant.

    Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal.

    Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.

  • Reply
    @Riddlestar93 June 19, 2024

    The reason it’s no being mentioned is that China has already ‘won’ the green energy economy of the future. Thanks to the inertia of our political system people talked about investment and radical think why didn’t amount to much. Today, due to deglobalisation and geopolitical issues with China, the west doesn’t want to make China rich by importing panels, batteries, small nuclear reactors etc. So all we will get from our elites is more hot air and expensive green energy.

  • Reply
    @DG-ie5ip June 19, 2024

    Instead of multiple parties…. Why not have all parties be represented by only "Two parties" and let the largest amount of votes decide the winner ?? Welcome to the USA politics…" Now common Britain" we developed our political system based off your foundation years ago !! ? What do you think ? and dont tell me you need more parties for the UK !! for heavens sake !

  • Reply
    @history6988 June 19, 2024

    He said, "we are going to spend more money to make it cheaper."

  • Reply
    @history6988 June 19, 2024

    "Prediction is central to the process of science—it is fundamental to the scientific method." Accept no prediction as to how the climate will respond to net zero.

  • Reply
    @cryton69 June 19, 2024

    stop lying🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐

  • Reply
    @RelationalDatabase-us7fr June 19, 2024

    You have to watch Climate Change – The Movie

  • Reply
    @chris-non-voter June 19, 2024

    Go to China and tell them to go carbon nuetral, stop banging on at us ( UK citizens)

  • Reply
    @WagginTailsTrails June 19, 2024

    It is about time it was brought back to everybody’s attention!!🙂‍↕️

  • Reply
    @marc.the.red1987 June 19, 2024

    Is anyone

  • Reply
    @erikolsen6269 June 19, 2024

    Go vegan

  • Reply
    @RandallSlick June 19, 2024

    Yet another climate change news piece that singularly fails to mention the elephant in the room: gas and oil industry lobbying (bribery) to water-down or reverse green energy measures, What a surprise.

  • Reply
    @globalwarming382 June 19, 2024

    At 6 min this woman cab lie and con better than trump

  • Reply
    @russtaylor2122 June 19, 2024

    Research 'Jevons Paradox', wherein is the assertion that any future 'replaceable' (not renewable) energy plan, will just be used alongside fossil fuels. You build a road and people will drive on it. Simply not going to get to net zero unless they fudge the statistics…. Oh, wait..

  • Reply
    @Bungle-UK June 19, 2024

    Stop worrying about this non event – live your life and enjoy yourself. Fly everywhere and enjoy a juicy steak 🥩

  • Reply
    @Pauli-tm2zt June 19, 2024

    What about massive demographic changes to our social environment?
    When do we get Net-zero immigration to protect our natural cultural eco-system?

  • Reply
    @marblegarden8456 June 19, 2024

    I hope we have a series of awful environmental catastrophes. The only thing voters and politicians seem to respond to is immediate danger and catastrophe, they forget about it by next year, and politicians blame all the spin-off problems on other sources. More pain now will kick our butts into gear so we can secure a more prosperous future.

  • Reply
    @OldScientist June 19, 2024

    The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:

    Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
    Aridity,

    Avalanche (snow),

    Average precipitation,

    Average Wind Speed,

    Coastal Flood,

    Agricultural drought,

    Hydrological drought,

    Erosion of Coastlines,

    Fire Weather (hot and windy),

    Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),

    Frost,

    Hail,

    Heavy Rain,

    Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,

    Landslides,

    Marine Heatwaves,

    Ocean Acidity,

    Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,

    River/Lake Floods,

    Sand and Dust Storms,

    Sea Level,

    Severe Wind Storms,

    Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,

    Tropical Cyclones.

    How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6?

    "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions."

    "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions."

    "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)."

    There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.

  • Reply
    @OldScientist June 19, 2024

    There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%!

    As an example of good news, Climate Change saved 555,103 lives in England and Wales between 2001 and 2020 (ONS, 2022).

  • Reply
    @Jen-lg4hp June 19, 2024

    Aren't those stupid masks bad for the environment or are these idiots prepping the masses for more lockdown BS?

  • Reply
    @crapisnice June 19, 2024

    Political status quo is just a environmental and proxy genocide criminal cartel

  • Reply
    @JohnAnders-vo7gs June 19, 2024

    'climate change' is yet another oven scam (pushed by evul lying journalists)

  • Reply
    @BrassToff June 19, 2024

    Oh no – the sky is falling in. Interesting to see how a cult belief can take over otherwise perfectly respectable people. Didn't hear Greta complaining much about the Nord Stream explosion and I see she's progressed to Palestine issues now. It's a well-trodden road of gullible people being driven by politicians backed by big companies, big advertising budgets and big media and supported by people who depend for money on certain agendas. I think we can all agree that we should look after nature and wildlife but come on. Somebody's going to tell me soon that the polar bears are almost extinct. And who's going to pay for this when we already have 14.4 million people in the UK living in poverty (see Joseph Rowntree foundation figures) ? Tell me how we address the awful income decline in this country over the last 30 years ?

  • Reply
    @Neilhuny June 19, 2024

    I loathe what the Tories have done to this country and could never vote for them. However, the manifesto from Labour is extraordinarily weak and inadequate. Where are Labour's plans to reduce wealth inequalities?

    The Greens even have a vastly better tax plan than Labour – 1% annual wealth tax on assets above £10m and 2% on assets above £1bn, along with reforms to Capital Gains Tax to align with workers' income tax, and removing the upper earnings limit on national insurance.

  • Reply
    @budgetpack June 19, 2024

    If your worried about the climate, STOP CHEMTRAILS.

  • Reply
    @themyrmidon2181 June 19, 2024

    The climate is returning to where it was two thousand years ago and it will take two thousand years for it to happen (again).

    There is no climate crisis.

  • Reply
    @renegadearcadehighs3103 June 19, 2024

    Its doesn’t exist, that’s why no one cares.

  • Reply
    @clivepierce1816 June 19, 2024

    Complete denial from Rebecca Pow. The Conservatives are intellectually, morally and temperamentally incapable of dealing with the climate and ecological crises.

  • Reply
    @Demon34N June 19, 2024

    Failed creation

    In all his arrogance

    Revelation has prophesied retribution

    A plague of suffering

    Castigations

    Open your fucking eyes

    Open your fucking eyes

    Open your fucking eyes

    Seas wash us away

    Wars being waged

    Famine stricken cultures still enslaved

    Blind to the signs

    A fate we've contrived

    Marching headfirst into this…

    Grand damnation

    The final holocaust

    Casting us as one into abyss

    Submerged beneath oceans of self-disgust

    All forsaken

    And burning for their lies

    And burning for their lies

    Open your fucking eyes

    Seas wash us away

    Wars being waged

    Famine stricken cultures still enslaved

    Blind to the signs

    A fate we've contrived

    Marching toward the…

    End of time

    Are we so blind to the signs?

    Suffer the fate we've contrived

    Descending hollow shells

    Precipitation of shrapnel

    Falling from the sky

    Chemical gassing the terrified masses

    Engulfing the world in denial

    Absolution cleansing their wicked minds

    Extradition for sins comprised

    Penitence, man kneeling before his cross

    Ask yourself where…

    Where does his judgment lie?

    Where does his judgment lie?

    Open your fucking eyes

    Seas wash us away

    Wars being waged

    Famine stricken cultures still enslaved

    Blind to the signs

    A fate we've contrived

    Marching toward the…

    End of time

    Are we so blind to the signs?

    Suffer the fate we've contrived

    This time their lies

    Rendering our senses so blind

    Suffer this fate we've contrived

    -Divine Hersey

  • Reply
    @joshuabates7424 June 19, 2024

    trump believes climate change is a "Chinese hoax." It is shocking! President Biden passed the biggest climate bill in the USA's history! We cannot allow trump near the White House!

  • Reply
    @johnrussell3961 June 19, 2024

    The planet doesn’t need us. We won’t survive this geological period. Perhaps the next period will create its own sentient beings to dig up our fossils and debate how Intelligent we were.

  • Reply
    @tianyinjia June 19, 2024

    No Economy without Ecology. Nowhere for Bunker Billionaires to flee to. There is no "Away" when you throw things. We are shitting in our own pool.

  • Reply
    @50_Pence June 19, 2024

    I live in the Philippines. Even if you all stopped using electricity and turned to eating grass – there's 12 people to ur 1 here going full speed in the other direction. On the road going to my next municipality (7km) they built 12 gas stations.

  • Reply
    @paulhardy761 June 19, 2024

    We have reduced our co2 production by reducing our industrial base . The destruction of our steel industry for example. And importing steel instead therefore exporting our co2 production .

  • Reply
    @Lappy-uz9yt June 19, 2024

    No one’s taking it seriously because we all know it’s bollox 😂

  • Reply
    @longnewton1 June 19, 2024

    The main parties are so obsessed with unnecessarily balancing tax and spend that including the investment needed to limit global warming to a livable level will crash their supposed fully costed budgets. And even without enough climate spend, they’re all using the promise of economic growth as their get out of jail card.

    We need a different approach. We’ll have to significantly increase the government deficit and taxes on those that can afford it. Only the Green Party is being honest about this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X
Enable Notifications OK No thanks
Verified by MonsterInsights