You mean the con who started the riot killing 5 people? You don"t really believe he got robbed do you mate? It"s ok to lose you know, hold hands up, go again- it doesn"t always have to be someone elses fault you lost! Not you mate- im talking about the don!

Was that a serious post?

‘’Seeds are gonna be the new currency. Invest in seeds. Good organic seeds’’

COYP

Agree with all of that, except scrapping the green levy. That would send out the wrong message. It's essential we don't lose sight of the big picture and the most important issue we face.

I realise how easy, and popular, it would be but if we compensate it needs to be done another way. The messaging is important. Climate change deniers, or those who fail to acknowledge its importance, must not be seen to be succeeding.

This is much like scrapping the poll tax, which Thatcher did, and which was a big mistake in my view. She had already put in place arrangements for low/non earners to be compensated, but wanted everyone to realise that local services have to be paid for. Jut because something is hugely unpopular doesn't make it wrong. Leaders must lead and not follow.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

There is a bigger point here in that the free market doctrine has failed to provide a competitive price for essentials such as fuel and electricity. That being the case, the government should be very much intervening - particularly when you consider BP is one of the world's biggest companies.
What has basically happened is fuel and electricity have become cartels and are all not competing with each other - merely allowing the status quo of profit over any actual competition.
The solution would be a decent priced competitor (one suspects they would not be welcome), government legislation (which we will see some countries do - not ours of course), or this third way - don't pay - don't let them make a profit from you. At the end of the day, doing nothing will just mean more of the same.
Whilst it won't work, as everything is rigged towards profit, these people are highlighting failures you should quite easily be able to see.
Vilifying of them is undermining your own consumer power - which has been taken away from you by the lack of actual competition, a cosy cartel and lack of government action (most likely to do with something corrupt - if any of us dare to tell the truth to ourselves). The people highlighting don't pay may be radical communists but it doesn't mean they're entirely wrong.
Think for yourselves on this one.

Red and Blue Army!

The speed of "the human input" is perfectly well understood. It's the impact which has a range of possibilities, which no-one can ever predict with total precision, although experience means we are getting better at it. So far, the worst case predictions are being exceeded. On that basis, we need to address the worst case as a minimum.

Preparing for the worst is always necessary, in any situation. Hoping for the best may serve in some unimportant ones, but not when the survival of mankind is at risk. Expecting something in the middle might turn out to be accurate, but we simply cannot afford to take the risk, especially when everything is pointing the other way.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.