Climate change hysteria is very much a middle class and above phenomenon.

They can afford the implications.

I detect a lot of narcissism and general hubris within that movement. When you see the protests it's always the same kind of white liberal activists...mostly women or effeminate men.

They largely ignore the tiny affect that the British isles has towards any climate change and instead insist that we become an example to the world in general and lead the way. Because in truth it's far less about any real affect it would have and has more to do with their saviour complex.

Again, these people are a minority within the country who bully and dictate to others who never had anything to do with how we got here.

It's an often made observation but the real 'polluters' aren't here but in China/India/US. If they were serious about tackling the issue they would direct all their resources into movements there.

But again, that would mean they didn't get to display and virtue signal here....They say they want to save the earth, but that obviously doesn't mean moving to the countries where that change would be required.

Pious, but not that pious.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Not a fan of this take - who partakes in the public protest is hardly relevant to the issue - yes, wealthier demographics can afford to worry about bigger picture issues like this more than the poor can, and have the free time to engage with it - I'm not sure what that proves.

Absolutely there are a tremendous amount of 'virtue signallers' in green movements, as you'll find in all moral causes - again, that does nothing to change the reality of what is actually happening.

I think it's pretty obvious why someone in the UK focuses their efforts on UK policy - the idea that unless you're willing to relocate to India or China, you must not really care about this, is really weak.

I think your line about being 'bullied and dictated to' is telling as to the real reason people resist a lot of green movements - they don't like being told what to do.

I'd argue against this.

I think those who partake in such issues, and the manner in which they do so, is of high importance.

Whether it be people with quite literally nothing better to do, narcissistically hijacking the green movement for some attention and feeling of importance in the world, or perhaps as an example a halfwit mob following Tommy Robinson around, they obfuscate sensible discussion and therefore conclusions drawn by the populous.

With the green issue, it has become a political dog whistle, a fashionable hobby for the wealthy and an outlet for failures to equally attach themselves to. If people are ever going to engage with that which they're 'being told to do', they have to have some faith in the source of the sermon. Malnourished, unemployed malcontents, the wealthy or indeed politicians are not high up on the relatability and trust chart for the masses. Most will immediately just refuse to participate or engage, I'd suggest.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Well, what I said it proves, it's a luxury belief (meaning they can afford the implications) that is more about virtue signalling and hubris than any practical effect on the world.

There main affect is in the disruption of the lives of the poor and in insults to icons of cultural heritage for media exposure.

It's very annoying.

Fair.

I disagree, the missionaries really believed in their cause and did exactly this all around the world.....frequently dying to, in their view, to save the souls of others.

Real commitment that puts cause before ego.

What you describe is purely a financial inconvenience, when there are definitely many, within a mainly middle class movement, who could actually afford it.

Well yes, and if you accept all the climate change priors then there is also the practical situation of where the real pollution is happening and that illustrates where the real battle lies....and thus the anger with action here amongst the practically powerless.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 11.12am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hardly.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

That is the point to which I am drawn, hence I used the word 'obfuscate' (ooh la la!).

I'm quite ignorant of any 'sensible approach' so if there has been one and it's failed, point taken. However, I do not see the current approach as effective.

The population, at large, will work off stereotypes.

The stereotypes that exist around the green approach for me do therefore dilute and distort any message, regardless of the actual issue at hand.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!