Everything wrong with The Guardian summed up in one article
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/climate-change-morally-wrong-carbon-abolition-movement#comment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
(edited 4 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Ferrograd
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/climate-change-morally-wrong-carbon-abolition-movement#comment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Depends what you mean by natural? Is man made natural?
The morals would apply to it being a choice and the impact on others?
Why cant you compare one protest movement to another?
Original post by 999tigger
Depends what you mean by natural? Is man made natural?
The morals would apply to it being a choice and the impact on others?
Why cant you compare one protest movement to another?
The morals would apply to it being a choice and the impact on others?
Why cant you compare one protest movement to another?
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
Literally, scientists acknowledge climate change is man made. The climate used to be far different - much hotter and drier - than it is now because of volcanoes etc. There were no humans on the earth then.
The fight to end slavery is vastly different than the fight to protect the environment. Slaves were an oppresed minority who needed to be freed, where climate change is still a highly important issue, if not the most important one we face now, but there's a difference between a liberation movement and a movement to protect the environment
Original post by Ferrograd
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
Literally, scientists acknowledge climate change is man made. The climate used to be far different - much hotter and drier - than it is now because of volcanoes etc. There were no humans on the earth then.
The fight to end slavery is vastly different than the fight to protect the environment. Slaves were an oppresed minority who needed to be freed, where climate change is still a highly important issue, if not the most important one we face now, but there's a difference between a liberation movement and a movement to protect the environment
Literally, scientists acknowledge climate change is man made. The climate used to be far different - much hotter and drier - than it is now because of volcanoes etc. There were no humans on the earth then.
The fight to end slavery is vastly different than the fight to protect the environment. Slaves were an oppresed minority who needed to be freed, where climate change is still a highly important issue, if not the most important one we face now, but there's a difference between a liberation movement and a movement to protect the environment
Perhaps its the man made influence they are protesting about?
It is still a protest movement and has things in common.
Liking your rage even if it is misguided.
Original post by 999tigger
Perhaps its the man made influence they are protesting about?
It is still a protest movement and has things in common.
Liking your rage even if it is misguided.
It is still a protest movement and has things in common.
Liking your rage even if it is misguided.
They should make that clear then - they're barking up the wrong tree.
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
their headline is widely sensational and misleading...
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
Original post by fallen_acorns
their headline is widely sensational and misleading...
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
It's just massively sensational, and is different from sensationalisation in say the BBC - its taking something massively out of context. As what is supposedly an intellectual paper, I would expect less sensationalism and more facts
Original post by Ferrograd
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
"Just"
Original post by Ferrograd
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/climate-change-morally-wrong-carbon-abolition-movement#comment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Firstly, only an exceptionally dim person would fail to grasp that the article is clearly talking about anthropogenic climate change.
Secondly, climate change is not a scientific process. I'll leave it up to your GCSE teachers to explain what scientific means.
You should examine your own intellectual shortcomings before you try to critique other's.
Original post by _Wellies_
Firstly, only an exceptionally dim person would fail to grasp that the article is clearly talking about anthropogenic climate change.
Secondly, climate change is not a scientific process. I'll leave it up to your GCSE teachers to explain what scientific means.
You should examine your own intellectual shortcomings before you try to critique other's.
Secondly, climate change is not a scientific process. I'll leave it up to your GCSE teachers to explain what scientific means.
You should examine your own intellectual shortcomings before you try to critique other's.
Maybe you can now understand my frustration when people use the wrong words for things.....
Yes I can figure out they are talking about man made activities, but they are still implying that climate change is somehow something we've created, when that simply isn't the case.
Original post by Ferrograd
They should make that clear then - they're barking up the wrong tree.
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
Perhaps people with any intelligence are capable of reading and understanding what is written?
Not my fault you are unable to see common factors from one protest movement to another.
Original post by Ferrograd
but they are still implying that climate change is somehow something we've created, when that simply isn't the case.
Man induced climate change isn't something we've created? Interesting point of view you have there. Where did you get your ideas from?
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
Original post by Ferrograd
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
Why do you keep saying that? The first part of what you're saying there isn't relevant to the article. The second part is.
Original post by Ferrograd
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
Firstly, I think it is clearly in common useage now - 'climate change' refers to the current, massively massively increased vs normal process caused by humans. To insist that every single time we say climate change we must say 'human-caused' beforehand is petty and impractical. In a scientific publication, maybe. In a newspaper headline, no.
Secondly, the first words of the article are literally 'human-induced climate change'.
In terms of the article itself - they directly state they are not comparing climate change and slavery, merely saying that when the West pumps out carbon dioxide and its those in Africa (drought), Bangladesh (flood), Caribbean (hurricanes) that actually suffer, maybe that's an immoral action on the part of the West? I really don't see a problem with that...
Original post by fallen_acorns
I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
This ^
There's nothing that can't be solved with the power of science. If our technology is destroying the environment, we can either not use it (like many people are advocating) or replace it with more efficient, environmentally friendly versions that do not incur any technological regression.
I'm all for nuclear power as the sole base load (come on fusion! Fission is fine for now though), and solar panels being mandatory on new builds.
And with that we have a sustainable source of transport, by replacing petrol cars with electric (which is happening already, just not as fast as we'd like). Electric cars are smoother anyway, there's no regression there.
As for material waste, I think small sacrifices such as paper straws over plastic are reasonable to ask of everyone. Other than that though, better recycling is the way forward. Plastic is integral to society now and we needn't stop using it- just stop dumping it.
And then there's the whole argument against meat. I wont support that argument as I think it's just vegans trying to push their moral agenda by means of hijacking the climate movement. Besides, going by their own quoted figures, far more carbon is naturally removed from the atmosphere than animals actually produce. So if you fixed every other problem as above, then this one needn't be addressed.
Original post by Ferrograd
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
I think it is closer than you think. Climate change will cause migration and with it conflict. Those forced to flee will live very limited lives at the hands of their gruging hosts.
Original post by Ferrograd
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/climate-change-morally-wrong-carbon-abolition-movement#comment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
It is obvious that they are referring to anthropogenic climate change, you are just trying to be difficult.
Original post by MagnumKoishi
This ^
There's nothing that can't be solved with the power of science. If our technology is destroying the environment, we can either not use it (like many people are advocating) or replace it with more efficient, environmentally friendly versions that do not incur any technological regression.
I'm all for nuclear power as the sole base load (come on fusion! Fission is fine for now though), and solar panels being mandatory on new builds.
And with that we have a sustainable source of transport, by replacing petrol cars with electric (which is happening already, just not as fast as we'd like). Electric cars are smoother anyway, there's no regression there.
As for material waste, I think small sacrifices such as paper straws over plastic are reasonable to ask of everyone. Other than that though, better recycling is the way forward. Plastic is integral to society now and we needn't stop using it- just stop dumping it.
There's nothing that can't be solved with the power of science. If our technology is destroying the environment, we can either not use it (like many people are advocating) or replace it with more efficient, environmentally friendly versions that do not incur any technological regression.
I'm all for nuclear power as the sole base load (come on fusion! Fission is fine for now though), and solar panels being mandatory on new builds.
And with that we have a sustainable source of transport, by replacing petrol cars with electric (which is happening already, just not as fast as we'd like). Electric cars are smoother anyway, there's no regression there.
As for material waste, I think small sacrifices such as paper straws over plastic are reasonable to ask of everyone. Other than that though, better recycling is the way forward. Plastic is integral to society now and we needn't stop using it- just stop dumping it.
What do you consider "regression"?
For example, you say you want mandatory solar panels. In fact the government recently removed solar panel subsidies as it felt they were too expensive. Putting panels on every house would cost a vast amount and would mean people had less money to spend on, say, electric cars. If we fund it through tax we'd have less money to spend on, say, new medical treatments on the NHS. Is that not also regression?
And then there's the whole argument against meat. I wont support that argument as I think it's just vegans trying to push their moral agenda by means of hijacking the climate movement. Besides, going by their own quoted figures, far more carbon is naturally removed from the atmosphere than animals actually produce. So if you fixed every other problem as above, then this one needn't be addressed.
I mean, come on. Look at that last line. You really think we're going to fix every other problem before its too late? Doesn't it make far more logical sense to reduce meat consumption now, then re-relax on the issue when we have fixed enough other problems?
Personally I'm not a vegetarian at all but I do restrict meat based on carbon emissions. I think its one of the absolute easiest ways we as individuals can reduce our carbon footprint at the moment.
Original post by nexttime
What do you consider "regression"?
For example, you say you want mandatory solar panels. In fact the government recently removed solar panel subsidies as it felt they were too expensive. Putting panels on every house would cost a vast amount and would mean people had less money to spend on, say, electric cars. If we fund it through tax we'd have less money to spend on, say, new medical treatments on the NHS. Is that not also regression?
I mean, come on. Look at that last line. You really think we're going to fix every other problem before its too late? Doesn't it make far more logical sense to reduce meat consumption now, then re-relax on the issue when we have fixed enough other problems?
Personally I'm not a vegetarian at all but I do restrict meat based on carbon emissions. I think its one of the absolute easiest ways we as individuals can reduce our carbon footprint at the moment.
For example, you say you want mandatory solar panels. In fact the government recently removed solar panel subsidies as it felt they were too expensive. Putting panels on every house would cost a vast amount and would mean people had less money to spend on, say, electric cars. If we fund it through tax we'd have less money to spend on, say, new medical treatments on the NHS. Is that not also regression?
I mean, come on. Look at that last line. You really think we're going to fix every other problem before its too late? Doesn't it make far more logical sense to reduce meat consumption now, then re-relax on the issue when we have fixed enough other problems?
Personally I'm not a vegetarian at all but I do restrict meat based on carbon emissions. I think its one of the absolute easiest ways we as individuals can reduce our carbon footprint at the moment.
It is, but what do you think about developing countries? They will be eating more meat like red meat when their economies develop properly.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
