1.5ºC

If anyone hasn't been living on the Moon, you'll be aware of the recent IPCC report released earlier this week. The main conclusions aren't surprising, reprising what's been known for at least 30 years updated for current carbon emissions which have continued at a pace accelerating the rate at which the most adverse impacts of increasing CO2 concentrations (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Nor are the steps necessary to ameliorate the worst effects surprising, being the things that we've been told repeatedly for the last 30 years, though as each year passes we'll need to go further to achieve the same result.

Are enough of the steps we can take sufficiently feasible to make a difference? What can we all do? Some steps are simpler than others. A few thoughts to start off a discussion on what is possible, and how we might manage to get there.

The technology to build homes and commercial properties that can be maintained without producing greenhouse gases is well established, and there's no technical reason why these shouldn't be standard for all new buildings, no reason why those methods couldn't have been standard a decade or more ago. For new build this would have limited cost implications, though retro-fitting existing properties is more costly (of course, if we'd adopted the proven technology ten years ago there'd be millions of properties which wouldn't need retro-fitting).

The technology for electric vehicles is now becoming viable, though the charging infrastructure is still a major hurdle to wide spread acceptance - at the moment I wouldn't have the means to recharge an electric vehicle at home or work. Though a lot less driving in total (and, more public transport) would be far better.

Historically, humanity has always found it easier to cut down forests than plant them. Even in the UK, where we're probably value forests more than in some other parts of the world where clearing forests for agriculture would be seen as more value, we still cut down more trees each year than we plant. To reach the 1.5ºC limit, we'd need to not only, for the first time in our history, stop deforestation we'd need to massively reverse that trend.

Electricity generation is a relatively straight forward issue, technically. Scotland currently generates more than 60% of electricity from renewables, with the government target of 100% renewable generation by 2020 still a challenge, but definitely achievable. We no longer have any functioning coal powered generating capacity, removing the most polluting fossil fuel from our electricity generation. The balance between different renewables will vary in different parts of the world, but the potential for renewable generation is present everywhere - certainly enough to cover shutting down coal, which will make a big impact.

«1

Comments

  • It's the Angel-Beast. We're going total gnostic on it. Speaking with forked tongue. In Canada our climate change plan includes a pipeline to move more and more tar sands oil.
  • We down in the Antipodes, on that largeish island off New Zealand, don't seem to give a shit. While our raw-onion-eating PM who once said the science behind climate change is "crap" has gone, his followers are in government.

    Our neighbours are not impressed.
    Scotland currently generates more than 60% of electricity from renewables, with the government target of 100% renewable generation by 2020 still a challenge, but definitely achievable. We no longer have any functioning coal powered generating capacity, removing the most polluting fossil fuel from our electricity generation.
    Wow. I never knew this. And I do not recall reading it. Thank you.

  • Climacus wrote: »
    Scotland currently generates more than 60% of electricity from renewables, with the government target of 100% renewable generation by 2020 still a challenge, but definitely achievable. We no longer have any functioning coal powered generating capacity, removing the most polluting fossil fuel from our electricity generation.
    Wow. I never knew this. And I do not recall reading it. Thank you.
    The really ambitious target, but an ambition that will probably need to be shared by all, is to reduce fossil fuels to below 50% for everything by 2030. That would need massive reductions in transport use, through increased electrified train use (for freight and passengers) and larger scale replacement of internal combustion with electric motors for cars, buses etc, and significant reduction in the use of oil and gas for heating (which will need significant improvements in building insulation). And, of course, even greater electric generating capacity to power this electric transport, heating etc.
  • It gives me hope some governments, and people, are willing to aim for the ambitious. And showing what can be done. And that doing so doesn't drop us all into mediaeval living conditions. I incorrectly never saw Scotland in my mind as a leader here; I'm ashamed I didn't know. All power to you.
  • Washington State has a ballot initiative to institute a carbon tax by the end of the year. I plan on voting for it.
  • I feel somewhat guilty at times because I know the dangerous situation, only such a short number of years away, will not affect me. But I worry for my granddaughters and their future families.
    The Moral Maze yesterday evening was going to be on the subject. I turned on half way through, to see if I could bear listening, in time to hear someone say, 'We must work together ...' I'm afraid I turned off. That sort of comment gets us nowhere. It's all very well being philosophical but where are the people with the power to make, and carry out[/i practical work.
  • In power. Behind the politicians.
  • Unfortunately I can't see it happening. The change in lifestyle of the planet's richest 20% is too great - and there is every incentive for nations to roll back on their commitments to gain short term competitive advantages from using fossil fuels.

    What can you do? Nothing really. Even if I personally make changes, they are overwhelmingly going to be dwarfed by government policy. And even if government does its "fair share" of the burden, the combined impact can be negated by some other large country deciding that the global agreement doesn't apply to them.

    It's a disgusting form of the Tragedy of the Commons writ large.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    The Mayor has an ambition for London to be network carbon zero by 2050. New buses are hybrid or electric, as are many taxis.

    The other story that has been in the news is that A Huge Reduction in Meat Eating is Essential to Avoid Climate Breakdown - which is a more personal choice.

    I hold a full driving licence but choose to use public transport, walk or cycle and was eating more or less vegetarian and/or vegan diet (until the offspring came home).
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's a disgusting form of the Tragedy of the Commons writ large.
    I had not heard of this, nor realised the situation had a name; thank you.

  • Thorny question: what about nuclear?

    AFAIK, France is currently the only developed country within its CO2 emissions targets. The reason for this is that something like 90% of our electricity comes from nuclear energy (don’t remember exactly, but in that ballpark). So: lower carbon emissions, whole other can of ecological worms.

    Is it worth it?
  • What can you do? Nothing really. Even if I personally make changes, they are overwhelmingly going to be dwarfed by government policy.

    Luckily for the Christian, we are not reduced to ends-based derivations for moral choices :smile: . So we do the right thing because, like God who created the right thing, it Just Is - and pray to want to, regardless of how 'futile' that turns out to be.

    'I think of God, who is so good, who is so good. And even if there is no God, I'd make it up'
  • I think this minimises the actual lifestyle change that is necessary. The fact is that very few Christians are prepared to make the personal changes. Which is entirely understandable given the whole underlying structure of our society acts against the individual making dramatic lifestyle changes.
  • Meanwhile we in Britain are set to trade less with our near neighbours, more with global partners with whom we will have done Great Trade Deals, involving transport of goods vast distances using polluting shipping and air transport.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    The Tragedy of the Commons.

    Which of course looks like the dark side of Adam Smith's"Invisible Hand".

    Both concepts (and the necessity of finding a better way) tell us a lot about global issues and national responses. The reason we need to find better ways of looking at these things is that the Invisible Hand concept is complacent, and the Tragedy of the Commons is despairing, about the solution of global issues. Neither complacency nor despair are of much help.

    In his OP Alan has focused on effective technological solutions which may of themselves encourage changes to social and national behaviour. In that context, I would also mention the further development of both large scale and small scale efficient energy storage methods, which would add weight to the move towards renewable sources and away from fossil fuels.

    We are a long way away from achieving the levels of global co-operation which would enable us to tackle the "Tragedy of the Commons". National self-interest seems destined to win out - until the point of realisation is reached that it is unenlightened self-interest. Which suggests that the long, patient, process of pointing out the bad effects of short term gains has to continue, even if the gains seem very modest and partial. The IPCC is helpful in that respect. So I'm not in despair about that process. But on its own it will be too slow to be an effective and timely change agent. On balance, I think continuing to develop and roll out more global-friendly technologies is likely to be more effective in the short to medium term. But I'm not complacent about that either.

  • It does appear to me that in the UK the move is towards nuclear from fossil which I am quite indifferent about. Scotland has a zillion rivers for hydro schemes which I suppose helps up there and plenty of scope for wind turbines. I suggested to Mrs Rogue that we get a wind turbine for our garden but she said the neighbours might object. OK, that was a tongue-in-cheek conversation but there does seem to be opposition to those kind of schemes which is unjustified in my view.

    There was an article the other day on the BBC website which suggested that the days of the internal combustion engine are numbered.
  • When personal self-interest coincides with the global good things can start moving. The cost of solar panels has decreased significantly since the early days, and the efficiency has increased. In the Netherlands the length of time for investment in solar panels to break even is now between 5 and 8 years, whilst the lifetime of a solar panel is around 25 years. Understandably the rate of growth of solar energy is increasing. By 2023 some are expecting around 18% of Dutch electricity to come from solar - and we are not known for our glorious long summers. A little bit of jiggling with tax incentives and people will WANT to do what is good for the planet.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    I got solar panels in 2014 and am well on course for a seven year payback. But then the UK government shafted the market by reducing the tariff payments for folks entering the scheme later. Even with reduced panel and installation costs, payback periods of a dozen or more years are common.
  • The previous solar panel regime in the UK was crackers, though.

    It seemed to have been set up to attract older people who were looking for a secure return on their investment - and involved reimbursement of capital costs via a feed-in tariff. Which is bonkers to start with. People got into it expecting a 6 or 7% return on their investment per year and a pay-off period of 10 years. Why anyone set up such a complicated system is hard to understand - a simple grant for instillation followed by market-realistic tariffs for generated electricity would surely have made more sense.

    But the most bonkers aspect is that owners could use the electricity generated and still earn over the odds for the generated electricity. They could literally use the electricity they were being paid to generate.

    Madness.



  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I think this minimises the actual lifestyle change that is necessary. The fact is that very few Christians are prepared to make the personal changes.

    I wouldn't be able to comment on that - I go to an inner-city church where a good chunk of the (elderly) congregation don't drive, and another chunk live in social housing where making changes oneself is less easy . But then I guess they fly to the Caribbean every 4 or 5 years - distributed family puts another strain on our travel-carbon-budget as well as commuting. Personally I'm the kind of hair-shirt enviro-loon that normal people like to point to as a personification of why they're not prepared to make the necessary personal changes.

    All sorts of verses come to mind over this stuff. Not acting personally whilst bewailing the tragedy befalling those at the sharp end of climate change sounds like hypocrisy, which is always a sticky biblical wicket.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Surely the biggest changes needed are from the wealthier people. If you don't have much money to begin with, you're less likely to own a car, or to travel by plane, and the food you eat is more likely to be the reduced stuff that would otherwise be thrown out, and in general you're more likely to buy from charity shops. And you are more careful with how much electricity you use. Regardless of whether ot not you happen to be a Christian. Whenever I do those online tests about carbon footprint, mine is very small, but it's less about lifestyle choice and more about living simply through necessity.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Surely the biggest changes needed are from the wealthier people.

    O, I think that is indeed true.

    Our late (but not lamented - good riddance to bad rubbish) Father F**kwit used to annoy me no end by engaging in 'conversation' with those in our local Community Centre, who, to my knowledge, were mostly on benefits, or even using the Food Bank, and boasting about the Wonderful Cruise he and his Lovely Wife had lately indulged in, and how much Wonderful Food they had been forced to consume or reject!
    :rage:




  • fineline wrote: »
    Surely the biggest changes needed are from the wealthier people.

    No, the wealthiest will still be able to afford nice things. The biggest changes will be forced on those who can just about manage to have a few nice things now and then, but will suddenly be priced out of having them. Take air travel. Dramatically increasing its cost in order to reduce the number of flights won’t affect the sort of people who fly BA to Monaco, it will affect those who fly EasyJet to Marbella.

    Even if the wealthiest have to change from three or four foreign holidays per year to two or three, that’s a much smaller lifestyle change than going from one foreign holiday per year to none.
  • Which is why market-based solutions like carbon taxes are insufficient to solve the problem. The free market created the problem - why would we expect the free market to fix it?

    (And I guess I'm still the only person who thinks going back to airships could keep air travel affordable and reduce emissions ... )
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Marvin, I was talking about lifestyle changes people choose to make, which mr cheesy was saying Christians need to make but aren't making. I was suggesting there's not much more the poorer people can choose to do, so the onus is on the wealthier. I wasn't addressing the changes that will happen to people as a result of this mess. For that, yes, I totally agree, it is always the poorest who suffer most.
  • When it comes to changes in lifestyle, the poor won't see much difference under a purely market system - when you can't afford to drive or take foreign holidays then you're not going to cut down on those activities. And, the rich won't see much difference in their lifestyles either - if you can comfortably afford to take multiple foreign holidays and drive however much you want then it'll take a massive hike in those costs to make those activities unaffordable. Though, of course, the rich have a choice to de-carbonise their lives, a choice the poor don't have, but simply raising prices (eg: through a carbon tax) won't do that. As Marvin said, the "solution" of increasing costs for carbon intensive activities will force the middle into lower carbon lifestyles, but it won't be entirely by choice.

    Which is probably why we need a more imaginative method of addressing our polluting lifestyles than just a carbon tax (a carbon tax may, probably will be, part of that - as a means to fund other initiatives if nothing else). We need to also provide support for the poor and middle income to de-carbonise - grants to improve housing, or construction of carbon neutral social housing, subsidy of public transport to provide an affordable alternative to personal cars, etc
  • The problem, it seems to me, is that the things that need to be cut back are more-or-less the same things that most people aspire to have.

    Meat consumption being one obvious example - as people become more prosperous they eat more meat, and poor people aspire to be the kind of people who eat meat regularly. And, of course, without debating the details we know that livestock production is a major source of greenhouse gases.

    On another kind of scale we know what many/most* people in the places where most of us here live aspire to be like - we want the latest gadgets, we want to live in bigger houses, we want a jet-setting lifestyle. Most people are not able to afford to fly off to Marbella several times a year - but I'd suggest many would if they could.

    So the things we are saying need to be cut back are the same things that people actually desire - so there is a disconnect between what we might intellectually know is desirable and what we actually desire. Like "healthy food" the climate-friendly alternatives look deeply unattractive.

    I would also say that there is a tendancy for many of us - including me - to give ourselves a pass on behaviours that would be destructive if everyone did them. So we might accept that we need to tone down air travel but then find ourselves flying out on trips that are hard to justify.

    * Yes, I'm aware that's not everyone here. But we here are not like most people
  • The underlying problem, which it seems no-one will mention, is that there are too many of us. 'Gaia's' solution: get rid of most/all of humanity.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I was just reading an article which was talking about particular aspirations being the social norm for women and the social pressure surrounding them and contradictory expectations, specifically with relation to women - here. I found it interesting - her world seems very different from mine, and I don’t really relate to this need to constantly be buying, and to be defined in that, but I imgine it is true of many.
  • {Non-scientist on deck. Definitely believes in climate change ('cause polar bears); isn't sure of what's human-caused and what is natural, but thinks we need to do something, even if all caused naturally. Sorting through some questions, off and on.}

    I went looking for simply-stated info, and found a great site:
    NASA's Climate Kids.

    Topics are broken down into small bites, and fairly easy to chew. Good for kids, non-scientists, and probably for climate-change skeptics.

    I've been trying to wrap my mind around the possible effects of 1 degree of warming. Just the mechanics of it--e.g. why does that raise the sea all over the planet.

    I'm currently thinking over the "Planet Health Report: Sea Level". From there:
    As global temperature goes up, ice trapped on land begins to melt, and sea level rises.

    But something else also causes sea level to rise. Water expands as it gets warmer. As the temperature of the ocean goes up, the ocean actually expands, even without adding any water from the melting ice!

    Very long time since science classes. But I'm guessing that means something like: "Cold temps compress the gas aspect of the hydrogen and oxygen in the water; warmer temps cause decompressing of the hydrogen and oxygen; and the melting ice goes drip drip drip." ;)

    But if the ocean also expands just from warming, without extra water (per the quote above), does that mean that it's moving towards the evaporation part of the water cycle, which would ease the expansion problem, and eventually cause rain, and cool things down??

    Please keep any explanations to about what a 10 or 12 year old kid absorb pretty easily. And please keep your laughter on your side of the screen.
    :) (angel)

    Thx,




  • I hadn't thought of water expanding. Thank you.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    But if the ocean also expands just from warming, without extra water (per the quote above), does that mean that it's moving towards the evaporation part of the water cycle, which would ease the expansion problem, and eventually cause rain, and cool things down??
    Not exactly answering your question, as I couldn't find an answer, but your EPA says:
    Warmer temperatures increase the rate of evaporation of water into the atmosphere, in effect increasing the atmosphere's capacity to "hold" water. Increased evaporation may dry out some areas and fall as excess precipitation on other areas.

    There is a nice diagram on that page explaining the different impacts of rainfall due to warmer temperatures.

  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Water expands as it gets warmer because the water molecules have more energy, so move around more and take up more space. Same as most other chemical substances.

    Water is an unusual substance, which is why ice floats: cold water takes up less space (is more dense, more molecules packed into a smaller space) than ice, which, to crystallise, organises itself into arrays that take up more space than crowded together cold water molecules.
  • Hey Golden Key

    It might be worth remembering that as a useful generalisation, everything gets bigger as it warms up - that's why metal structures sometimes buckle in heat, because they swell up and push themselves apart (long before they get hot enough to get truly bendy, like in a blacksmith's forge). Water behaves the same way, as do gasses.

    It might also be useful to regard the sun's energy, trapped by greenhouse gasses, as 'energy' and not just as 'heating'. You can use energy to make heat, but you can also use it to create motion, to transport things, to make sound, light etc etc. Sometimes we use energy to do one type of Work (an engineering word as well as a common one) and quite another comes about as a result - for instance we use energy to climb a ladder (gaining what engineers call Potential Energy) whose potential is released if we fall off (turning it into Kinetic or movement energy) which is in turn converted into the energy required to bruise us and break bones when we hit the ground.

    In the same way trapped solar energy might be expected to make the climate more... energetic, not *only* having higher temperature . That means stronger winds which blow up more quickly; more evaporation, water transport and rain; perhaps more instability. So if we think 'warmer, more evaporation' we might think less 'sea levels might stabilise' and more 'strong winds and downpours as it all comes down again'.
  • re air travel. With increased incomes in China, we are due to see and exponential rise in air travel. Which we can do nothing about. Plus, most of the plastic waste in our oceans comes from rivers running out of China (I believe).
    On the other hand, IF the Chinese government wishes to take measures to combat emissions, it is ideally placed to do so, being authoritarian. Whereas India, and any other democracy, can't.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    With regard to people's convictions and motivations to change, I think a difficulty is that everything is comparative. People so often feel hard done by if others aound them have a more extravagant lifestyle than them, so they want more, but they also can feel smug and virtuous about it and not recognise their own extravagances. I've noticed that no matter how wealthy prople are, they very rarely define themselves as wealthy, or associate themselves with wealth, as they always know people who are wealthier, they are always aware of the limits of their own wealth, and can even feel they are struggling as a result.

    A plus side of the comparative thing is that if people are easily influenced by others and wanting to keep up, and be seen as virtuous, they will often be more eco friendly if their friends and people they admire are, just because that's the thing to do. Though the things people focus on can become trends in themselves, so, for instance it may be trendy to put much focus on reducing plastic consumption, but not so much on air travel or car travel.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    The environmental impact of aviation is a huge issue.

    And there is no obvious answer as yet. Both tourism and business flights seem likely to increase inexorably. When working, travelling by air around Europe (and occasionally the US) was an inescapable part of my duties. Tourism choices are different (we don't fly).

    Nor do I see any easy technological fixes re aeroplane flight.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    It is weird, because so many flights are non-essential, and if people were doing something non-essential that was destroying their own home, they would surely stop. I wonder, if people as a whole were to stop going abroad on holiday, if aeroplanes stopped business for such flights, whether people would really feel their lives had been ruined, or if they would adapt pretty easily. I guess if it were the same for everyone, people might accept it more than if it were the case for themselves, but their neighbour still got to fly abroad. The more I think about this, the more I think envy and rivalry is a huge disabling factor on the world.
  • I guess it is the same as doing something destructive to your health - smoking, overdrinking, taking recreational drugs. You might know the local long-term impacts but in the moment, you are only interested in the immediate gains.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    That's the issue in a nutshell, mr cheesy. Self-denial as a virtue doesn't get much of a hearing in the instant gratification age. It's all Freddy Mercury's fault. I want it all, I want it all. I want it all. I want it now.

    (I'm turning into a grumpy old git).
  • edited October 2018
    The first R in the environmental movement's 5R's is Refuse - refuse to participate in the social game of wanting to keep up with the latest fashions, gadgets and consumerist gratification. Which is, of course, not only fundamental but considerably more difficult than improving recycling rates.
  • Still, if Brexit turns out as it looks, planes will be grounded, food waste will be reduced (as there will be less food), people will be driving less (as there will be less jobs to go to).

    Yey, go us - sacrificing ourselves for the planet.
  • GwaiGwai Purgatory Host
    Of course on the other hand my giving up meat won't be nearly as useful as my persuading my neighbors to have stricter environmental rules imposed on businesses. Not that I can pretend this particular congress has any odds of doing such, but future ones will have to.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    (And I guess I'm still the only person who thinks going back to airships could keep air travel affordable and reduce emissions ... )

    Several attempts to reintroduce airships have been made, because you're right, they do use less fuel than heavier-than-air aircraft. Unfortunately they are also slower, less manoeuverable and more vulnerable to bad weather. And they have a far smaller payload: you need a huge envelope to lift a fairly small gondola. A helium airship needs to have four times as much gas in it to lift the same weight as a hydrogen airship - and nobody's going to want to ride in a hydrogen airship after what happened to the Hindenburg.

    Worth considering for tourism, though, because they give a much smoother, quieter ride than aeroplanes and helicopters.

  • Surface transport would be the best option. High speed rail would be able to compete with aircraft for speed, but have difficulty crossing large bodies of water - so should be able to give UK people their holidays in the Mediterranean sun, but not a visit to Florida.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Eirenist wrote: »
    The underlying problem, which it seems no-one will mention, is that there are too many of us. 'Gaia's' solution: get rid of most/all of humanity.

    Far and away the most effective thing we could do to head off or at least blunt the extent of both climate change and the sixth mass extinction is to have fewer children in industrialized countries, especially in the U.S. Live car-free, and save 2.4 tons of CO2. Have one fewer child, and save 58.6.

    But the societal changes that would have to take place to convince enough people to do this will take too long to be effective. Most people won't do anything this drastic until the devastating effects of climate change are obvious in their daily lives, and then it will be too late to do anything but figure out how to live in a very different ecosystem.

    We need large-scale action, and we need it fast. I'm tired of being told to do things like wash my clothes in cold water (which I do) when what we need to do is change all of our energy to renewable ASAP. We should be re-forming our economy around doing that right now. Forbes magazine got got all excited last year at the thought that California would get to 100% renewable energy by 2045, and all I thought was, this is going to be too late, way too late. The Arctic ice sheets could very well already be gone by 2045.

    We need to organize our whole society around the goal of preserving the only ecosystem we know, but we won't do it, because we won't cooperate enough.

  • While we're not good a predicting precisely we do know the direction the melt water is flowing. Glad to be living in a the (currently) cold part of North America (-10°C) over nights this week.
  • Meanwhile it's going to be 27°C in parts of the Netherlands today. Middle of October. I do know the difference between weather and climate, but it does bring it home to you when you see numbers like that. There are millions of people living below sea level here and I don't know a single one who has considered moving away because of climate change.
  • kbekbe Shipmate
    If all the existing land ice melted sea levels would rise, considering only the effect of water volume and not the expansion effect of temperature rise for all water at that point, would be approximately 220 feet.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited May 7
    Well, we had this interesting news released...
    One million of the world's species are now under threat of extinction, according to the biggest-ever review of the state of nature on Earth.

    (as an aside, I liked this satirical take... -- and, yes, I do know we can care about more than 1 thing, and I am not judging those interested in the new prince; but I can take a guess at what most people were talking about today)

    Australia is in the midst of an election with both major parties not exactly, to my mind, instilling confidence that they are treating it with the seriousness it deserves*; though one is slightly better the other. I am hoping this is a wake-up call, but I fear the unbelievers won't care and will continue to say it's alarmist claptrap.

    What do you see happening?


    * given multiple massive fish kills have not, to me, seen major action, I can't see anything moving some politicians...
  • We've had three years where the state of the environment has been pushed off the important things list by Brexit. Even the intervention of Sir David Attenborough (national treasure) has only managed a few days of people worrying about the environment before the media return to considering the UKs place in the world.

    Not that the environment is alone in being ignored by the media obsession with Brexit. They have also ignored increases rates of poverty, the total mess the government has made of Universal Credit, the abysmal abuse of those born outwith these shores and countless other stories deserving of front page coverage for weeks at a time.
Sign In or Register to comment.