Would you vote for the Green Party?

Whitesince63 wrote:No, I wouldn’t vote for the greens, ever. For a start, although nobody can dispute global warming is happening, we can take a view on whether we’re causing it, or can do much if anything about it. Our planet is continually under the threat of climate change, we have always had hot periods, cold periods, floods and famines and the CO2 levels continually rise and fall. 

Having said all that, I don’t for one minute argue that we shouldn’t do what we can to help, especially regarding wildlife and the environment by controlling and reducing our dependence on plastics. The completely ridiculous wae against fossil fuels is just barmy. Sticking ugly, uneconomical windmills disrupting our countryside and seascapes is madness when we know very well that we can now produce increasingly efficient and low carbon petrol and diesel options.

Putting all our options into renewable electricity is crazy. What happens if the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun doesn’t shine and how many times are cables brought down when they do leaving regions stranded and when at least most could rely on staying warm with their gas heating. This rush into renewables without considering the many down sides and setting unrealistic timescales for implementation proves just how naive our politicians are.

The only winners from this will once again be the wealthy land owners who are raking it in with their Wind and Solar farms and they’re even prepared to rob a skinny, unaware little schoolgirl of her childhood to push their disgusting rhetoric.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy could learn a lot from Dave. He made his point clearly in one word.

boltonbonce wrote:Difficult for any small party to make progress without proportional representation.

Sluffy wrote:

I think the fact that even China where there are no wealthy landowners, is looking to move away from fossil fuels into renewable energy suggests a common worldwide acceptance that global warming this time around is very much human made and is/has already affected climate change to the detriment of the planet.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The vast majority of scientists are in agreement over this, (97% according to this article). Can you either give some evidence that backs your view it’s debatable or just give it a rest?

Whitesince63 wrote:So what do all you greenies think of COP26 then? Absolutely nothing achieved
-small vague commitments to "aim for" a fifth of the  methane and carbon reductions required - so broadly I agree
because the “science” you’ve been brainwashed into thinking we can do much about has been proved false
- no it hasn't

If it were so true and the warnings of Armageddon so convincing, do you seriously not think countries like China, India, Russia and others wouldn’t be just so minded to act on it?
- no I don't. The West was built on the exploitation of cheap fossil fuels and that gave us the huge advantage and relative wealth that we enjoy today so developing countries are very resistant to being told that they can't do the same thing - especially as they're sitting on huge fossil fuel resources. They are balancing their concerns for global warming against their desire to catch up with and overtake the West economically.

Which of these politicians will still be in office in 2060 and 2070, when their “aim” to reach carbon neutral is reached?
- nobody wants Boris around next year, let alone in 50 years' time
Not one, because they know the planet will still be here and so will life as we know it. 
- there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they believe that - but plenty to suggest the opposite

Nobody doubts climate change, or thinks it’s not pertinent to look for renewable energy options because ultimately fossil fuels will run out and they’ll have to, but all this bollocks spouted by virtue signalling western democracies that the worlds about to end is just wrong. We’re filling our kids heads with fear and nonsense instead of concentrating their minds on how we change things in the future as technology drives it and it is a government failure. We all thought we knew everything as teenagers but it’s only as we get older that we realise we knew nothing. Thank goodness we had the older generations to temper us but now we’re supposed to listen to some brainwashed 18 year old Swedish child on how to save the planet. It’s ridiculous and we should be ashamed of ourselves for falling for it.

-When I was young we lived in constant fear of nuclear holocaust. We were made to sit up to watch the Cuban Missile Crisis. My mum wouldn't breastfeed my little brother because of Strontium 90. We all thought the world could end at any minute throughout the Cold War.
But because my generation was aware of the danger, the world and politics changed and although we could still all get nuked at any time, the risk has dissipated a bit.

So if the world is going to hell on a handcart your plan would be to not mention it?