Thanks for this. So typical: "Nonetheless, the audience is roused, encouraged to hear a position they already believe in. In place of evidence, they declare smoothly, ‘…We of the free market persuasion…’"
It reminds me of the idiots in the US during the Obamacare debate holding up a sign that read "Keep the government out of my medicare!" Fossil fuels are, in fact, one of the single most subsidized industries in the world. These "free market" claims they make are just so much BS.
Thanks for a great report! Without any evidence to present to back up their claims it seems that the fear of change these individuals have has manifested into something quite bitter and angry. It would be sad if it wasn't so politically dangerous and contagious.
I think to some extent they're misinformed - the audience, that is. On the other hand, the speakers might just be doing a job and have no conscience, or perhaps be light on natural curiosity and scruples. One would think if I my job involved speaking in public, I'd want to explore my subject from various angles so I could arrive at a position I could defend with facts and integrity!
In that BBC documentary Big Oil vs The World, the lobbyists of the past expressed regret. I wasn't convinced - but I'll admit if you were lobbying 30 years ago you might genuinely believe the climate scientists and activists couldn't be sure and you had fair arguments against their case. But in 2022, even by the end of the nineties, it's reasonable to question the integrity (or intelligence to be generous), of lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.
I believe as humans, we practice (and are prone to), a lot of religious and mystical thinking in how we approach serious issues. As such we are vulnerable to being guided by what we want to believe, more than what the hard facts on the ground.
Definitely an Achilles Heel of our species. We need to be 'More Spock,' 'More Greta Thunberg' - who incidentally was mocked lightly at this very meeting - no surprise there.
Thanks for documenting what must have been a painful experience. My thoughts about the rebranded GWPF, Tax Payers Alliance etc. is that ideology and physical reality have collided and for the moment ideology has prevailed. Those comments about medieval warming periods in Britain that have been ‘ignored’ by climate scientists tell you all you need to know. I don’t think there’s any point in trying to engage with or convince these people.
I am also sceptical about Net Zero by 2050, but for different reasons. The UK government’s plans rely heavily on Negative Emissions Technologies which only exist in small pilot form and have never been proven at scale. The favourite is Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage or BECCS, as was recently exposed by Panorama for burning timber from old growth Canadian forests at the Drax plant. To be effective, you’d need to keep growing and burning a forest the size of India, land that could be used to grow food or house biodiversity. You can only conclude that it’s an excuse to kick the can down the road on actually reducing emissions.
Thanks so much for reading Tim and for sharing your thoughts. I'm curious about how the room and speakers would have responded if I'd challenged them directly. Attending reminded me that there's still much I don't know and understand about our present crisis, as does your comment. But I also need to remind myself that I don't need to know everything to contribute to the conversation. I just have to keep learning and be honest with myself and others about what I don't know, as well as what I find out.
I think Liz Truss meant the Anti-Greed Coalition, because while we may have variable views on what a sustainable economy means and whether we need green growth or a circular economy that's agnostic about growth, we all agree that 'Greed Isn't Good'.
Thanks for this. So typical: "Nonetheless, the audience is roused, encouraged to hear a position they already believe in. In place of evidence, they declare smoothly, ‘…We of the free market persuasion…’"
It reminds me of the idiots in the US during the Obamacare debate holding up a sign that read "Keep the government out of my medicare!" Fossil fuels are, in fact, one of the single most subsidized industries in the world. These "free market" claims they make are just so much BS.
Thanks for a great report! Without any evidence to present to back up their claims it seems that the fear of change these individuals have has manifested into something quite bitter and angry. It would be sad if it wasn't so politically dangerous and contagious.
I think to some extent they're misinformed - the audience, that is. On the other hand, the speakers might just be doing a job and have no conscience, or perhaps be light on natural curiosity and scruples. One would think if I my job involved speaking in public, I'd want to explore my subject from various angles so I could arrive at a position I could defend with facts and integrity!
In that BBC documentary Big Oil vs The World, the lobbyists of the past expressed regret. I wasn't convinced - but I'll admit if you were lobbying 30 years ago you might genuinely believe the climate scientists and activists couldn't be sure and you had fair arguments against their case. But in 2022, even by the end of the nineties, it's reasonable to question the integrity (or intelligence to be generous), of lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.
I believe as humans, we practice (and are prone to), a lot of religious and mystical thinking in how we approach serious issues. As such we are vulnerable to being guided by what we want to believe, more than what the hard facts on the ground.
Definitely an Achilles Heel of our species. We need to be 'More Spock,' 'More Greta Thunberg' - who incidentally was mocked lightly at this very meeting - no surprise there.
Thanks for documenting what must have been a painful experience. My thoughts about the rebranded GWPF, Tax Payers Alliance etc. is that ideology and physical reality have collided and for the moment ideology has prevailed. Those comments about medieval warming periods in Britain that have been ‘ignored’ by climate scientists tell you all you need to know. I don’t think there’s any point in trying to engage with or convince these people.
I am also sceptical about Net Zero by 2050, but for different reasons. The UK government’s plans rely heavily on Negative Emissions Technologies which only exist in small pilot form and have never been proven at scale. The favourite is Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage or BECCS, as was recently exposed by Panorama for burning timber from old growth Canadian forests at the Drax plant. To be effective, you’d need to keep growing and burning a forest the size of India, land that could be used to grow food or house biodiversity. You can only conclude that it’s an excuse to kick the can down the road on actually reducing emissions.
But then, I am part of the ‘Anti Growth Coaliton’
Thanks so much for reading Tim and for sharing your thoughts. I'm curious about how the room and speakers would have responded if I'd challenged them directly. Attending reminded me that there's still much I don't know and understand about our present crisis, as does your comment. But I also need to remind myself that I don't need to know everything to contribute to the conversation. I just have to keep learning and be honest with myself and others about what I don't know, as well as what I find out.
I think Liz Truss meant the Anti-Greed Coalition, because while we may have variable views on what a sustainable economy means and whether we need green growth or a circular economy that's agnostic about growth, we all agree that 'Greed Isn't Good'.