Thank you for selectively quoting me. Not sure you got past the first sentence. I’ve highlighted the rest for your approval.
as I understand climate change is going to screw us all. There’s no escape from it whether your rich or poor. He does however have the ability to swap his cars to electric right now whilst poorer people and businesses on limited cash flows don’t. This might ease at least that burden for them?
I’ve explained in another comment that I haven’t seen any concrete detail on how the delay will help improve the situation but that I kinda understand the logic that if you’re poorer you might need more time to take action and swap your car out.
So question for you: are you happy to force people / businesses that can’t afford large jumps in expenditure to swap their cars? Or people that have no access to nearby charging stations?
What I’d like to see are concrete announcements that say between now and 2035 this is how we’ll alleviate the situation for the majority of the population that might fall into that category and this is why we can’t do it for 2030. I’ve not seen that so I remain sceptic about this new policy. I don’t see that as controversial but apparently it is 🤷?
The point I made was only about the ability of the rich vs. poor to survive in a climate apocalypse. That’s why I selected the part of your comment pertaining to that.
I’m not taking about a gradual, genteel descent into a mini ice age, I’m talking about a cataclysm which changes the aspect of humanity.
Forcing people to swap their cars is peanuts compared to the roiling climate we are producing. We can either force small business owners to go green and hurt their profits, or we can render the planet uninhabitable. Your perspective is parochial and unscientific.
Nobody is denying the science. Tone down your rhetoric, buddy. I’m not in government. Climate change is real and will impact us all. Rich people will be able to pivot more easily. But you need to think about how other people less fortunate will be able to cope. What’s the point of a greener future if you’ve bankrupted people in the process? The only people that benefits from that are rich people. Congratulations 🎉. It’s better to take people with you as much as you can and if that means pushing back plans to align with the EU then that’s pragmatic. Like I’ve said before I would love to see some concrete details of how the government are going to help in the five extra years they are allowing.
What climate apocalypse are you predicting in five years from 2030 to 2035? And be scientific about it.
“A greener future”? Are you sure you’re not in government? The kinds of platitude you’re spouting would suggest you are. Or why are you parroting their rhetoric for free?
“A greener future” is an utter nonsense. We either have an habitable planet or we do not. If we continue pushing back our already-too-weak pledges then we shall have the latter.
If you cannot or will not understand the impact that five years of retarded progress will have down the line, then I probably won’t be able to explain much science to you.
Oh, no. I’m expressing a genuine viewpoint here. I’m not the one down voting my opponent. If you have nothing of substance to say then that would make you the troll, wouldn’t it? That’s ok. But I think you might have a bit more to think about than me after this exchange. Which is good!
Thank you for selectively quoting me. Not sure you got past the first sentence. I’ve highlighted the rest for your approval.
I’ve explained in another comment that I haven’t seen any concrete detail on how the delay will help improve the situation but that I kinda understand the logic that if you’re poorer you might need more time to take action and swap your car out.
So question for you: are you happy to force people / businesses that can’t afford large jumps in expenditure to swap their cars? Or people that have no access to nearby charging stations?
What I’d like to see are concrete announcements that say between now and 2035 this is how we’ll alleviate the situation for the majority of the population that might fall into that category and this is why we can’t do it for 2030. I’ve not seen that so I remain sceptic about this new policy. I don’t see that as controversial but apparently it is 🤷?
The point I made was only about the ability of the rich vs. poor to survive in a climate apocalypse. That’s why I selected the part of your comment pertaining to that.
I’m not taking about a gradual, genteel descent into a mini ice age, I’m talking about a cataclysm which changes the aspect of humanity.
Forcing people to swap their cars is peanuts compared to the roiling climate we are producing. We can either force small business owners to go green and hurt their profits, or we can render the planet uninhabitable. Your perspective is parochial and unscientific.
Nobody is denying the science. Tone down your rhetoric, buddy. I’m not in government. Climate change is real and will impact us all. Rich people will be able to pivot more easily. But you need to think about how other people less fortunate will be able to cope. What’s the point of a greener future if you’ve bankrupted people in the process? The only people that benefits from that are rich people. Congratulations 🎉. It’s better to take people with you as much as you can and if that means pushing back plans to align with the EU then that’s pragmatic. Like I’ve said before I would love to see some concrete details of how the government are going to help in the five extra years they are allowing.
What climate apocalypse are you predicting in five years from 2030 to 2035? And be scientific about it.
“A greener future”? Are you sure you’re not in government? The kinds of platitude you’re spouting would suggest you are. Or why are you parroting their rhetoric for free?
“A greener future” is an utter nonsense. We either have an habitable planet or we do not. If we continue pushing back our already-too-weak pledges then we shall have the latter.
If you cannot or will not understand the impact that five years of retarded progress will have down the line, then I probably won’t be able to explain much science to you.
Mate, take a break. Stop being an antagonistic bellend. Take your trolling elsewhere.
Oh, no. I’m expressing a genuine viewpoint here. I’m not the one down voting my opponent. If you have nothing of substance to say then that would make you the troll, wouldn’t it? That’s ok. But I think you might have a bit more to think about than me after this exchange. Which is good!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator