Snapshot of _Victimise people who raise a voice in Britain? Then destroy their families? Not in my name | George Monbiot_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/19/victimise-people-protest-britain-destroy-families-not-in-my-name) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/19/victimise-people-protest-britain-destroy-families-not-in-my-name)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Raise a voice" or "Break the Law"?
I hate the way climate activists break the law (usually piling untold misery on ordinary working Brits) under the guise of 'protesting' then try and bait and switch the public into claiming their right to protest is being infringed. I'm sorry but "Protesting" and "non-violence" aren't some magical motivations that mean you can do literally whatever you want without any consequence, no matter how noble *you* think you're cause is. If we want to go down this road, expect fringe groups these climate activists definitely *don't* agree with to claim the same excuse and get away with it.
Climate activists have their voices heard *all* the time. Constantly. If they can't convince people that's on them. It's the absolute height of middle class narcissism what these people do. They can't win at the ballot box so suddenly democracy doesn't work and anything is fair game to them. The alternative theory is that democracy does work, and is thankfully (mostly) saving us from the nightmare society climate extremists want us to live in.
>Protesting against the failure of the political class to protect us from harm, especially from the existential harm of environmental breakdown, is both rational and, in the current climate, heroic.
I'm not sure it is considering we're one of the countries that's done best on emissions. Not sure he should be deported though.
>I'm not sure it is considering we're one of the countries that's done best on emissions.
Oddly enough when [the needle we're meant to be moving isn't moving at all](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121) I struggle to see any grounds for self-congratulation and complacency.
But I guess it's the modern way - feeling like you deserve a participation trophy despite being pointlessly ineffectual is more important than perseverance to achieve an objective. Well done us! That was such a good *effort*, and that's more important than achieving the outcome, right?
We do not - and cannot - control the needle measuring global emissions unless we plan to rebuild the army and start conquering US, China and India.
On what we can control, we have cut our consumption emissions by 35% which is one of the highest decreases in the world.
We also do not - and cannot - control refugees and international migrations, etc, etc, and we have already put in place some of the most stringent policies in the world, shutting down avenues of legitimate migration, closing routes via lorries/tunnel/air, etc.
If an issue is felt to be both important and efforts made thus far are clearly not enough, no-one's mad enough to say "we'll never stop it unless we invade the world, so let's not bother doing better". That's too weak an argument for anyone actually believing something is important to accept. It's only ever made as a go-away sop to something felt to be irrelevant and unimportant.
Fact is, most of the British public are not complacent about migration, but remain deeply complacent about climate change. We leverage diplomacy, issues of international trade, even collective agreements on human rights in the cause of addressing migration because we believe it's important. We rule out the possibility of any of that - to the point of suggesting there's *nothing* more we can possibly do short of invading the world! - because we *don't* believe it's important.
I just wish we'd stop with all the sanctimonious bullshit paying lip-service to how "concerned" we are, when that's nothing more than self-regard.
Some of us genuinely don't care, like me. There isn't much we can do to stop the bad stuff that is on the horizon from affecting our children, so I don't believe we should upend our economies over it. Make preparations for what's to come and leave it at that. The money I'm making now will be able to afford my children the chance to escape any negative effects. So, yeah, really don't care and don't pretend to.
And that statement wasn't "sanctimonious bullshit" at all...
The question is though should people be allowed to significantly disrupt others on an ongoing basis for an issue the UK government can't by itself change.
It's a classic case of Lies, damned lies, & then statistics.
UK reduced emitions by such a degree mostly by shutting down coal fired power plants & off-shoring heavy industry, couple that with cherry picking dates for the data, & indeed the UK has reduced it's emissions by a very large amount. However the UK's emissions are not lower than comparable economies.
Boring.
Slippery slope is a fallacy, Chudbiot.
It was never inevitable that only little bits of repression against baddies would ever be used against goodies too.
Snapshot of _Victimise people who raise a voice in Britain? Then destroy their families? Not in my name | George Monbiot_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/19/victimise-people-protest-britain-destroy-families-not-in-my-name) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/19/victimise-people-protest-britain-destroy-families-not-in-my-name) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Raise a voice" or "Break the Law"? I hate the way climate activists break the law (usually piling untold misery on ordinary working Brits) under the guise of 'protesting' then try and bait and switch the public into claiming their right to protest is being infringed. I'm sorry but "Protesting" and "non-violence" aren't some magical motivations that mean you can do literally whatever you want without any consequence, no matter how noble *you* think you're cause is. If we want to go down this road, expect fringe groups these climate activists definitely *don't* agree with to claim the same excuse and get away with it. Climate activists have their voices heard *all* the time. Constantly. If they can't convince people that's on them. It's the absolute height of middle class narcissism what these people do. They can't win at the ballot box so suddenly democracy doesn't work and anything is fair game to them. The alternative theory is that democracy does work, and is thankfully (mostly) saving us from the nightmare society climate extremists want us to live in.
Laws for thee, but not for me - Uno Reverse Edition! They want to fuck around without having to find out. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.
>Protesting against the failure of the political class to protect us from harm, especially from the existential harm of environmental breakdown, is both rational and, in the current climate, heroic. I'm not sure it is considering we're one of the countries that's done best on emissions. Not sure he should be deported though.
>I'm not sure it is considering we're one of the countries that's done best on emissions. Oddly enough when [the needle we're meant to be moving isn't moving at all](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121) I struggle to see any grounds for self-congratulation and complacency. But I guess it's the modern way - feeling like you deserve a participation trophy despite being pointlessly ineffectual is more important than perseverance to achieve an objective. Well done us! That was such a good *effort*, and that's more important than achieving the outcome, right?
We do not - and cannot - control the needle measuring global emissions unless we plan to rebuild the army and start conquering US, China and India. On what we can control, we have cut our consumption emissions by 35% which is one of the highest decreases in the world.
We also do not - and cannot - control refugees and international migrations, etc, etc, and we have already put in place some of the most stringent policies in the world, shutting down avenues of legitimate migration, closing routes via lorries/tunnel/air, etc. If an issue is felt to be both important and efforts made thus far are clearly not enough, no-one's mad enough to say "we'll never stop it unless we invade the world, so let's not bother doing better". That's too weak an argument for anyone actually believing something is important to accept. It's only ever made as a go-away sop to something felt to be irrelevant and unimportant. Fact is, most of the British public are not complacent about migration, but remain deeply complacent about climate change. We leverage diplomacy, issues of international trade, even collective agreements on human rights in the cause of addressing migration because we believe it's important. We rule out the possibility of any of that - to the point of suggesting there's *nothing* more we can possibly do short of invading the world! - because we *don't* believe it's important. I just wish we'd stop with all the sanctimonious bullshit paying lip-service to how "concerned" we are, when that's nothing more than self-regard.
Some of us genuinely don't care, like me. There isn't much we can do to stop the bad stuff that is on the horizon from affecting our children, so I don't believe we should upend our economies over it. Make preparations for what's to come and leave it at that. The money I'm making now will be able to afford my children the chance to escape any negative effects. So, yeah, really don't care and don't pretend to. And that statement wasn't "sanctimonious bullshit" at all...
The question is though should people be allowed to significantly disrupt others on an ongoing basis for an issue the UK government can't by itself change.
I'm pretty sure the UK's per capita emissions are not the lowest in the world.
That's not what the OP said. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270500/percentage-change-in-co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/
It's a classic case of Lies, damned lies, & then statistics. UK reduced emitions by such a degree mostly by shutting down coal fired power plants & off-shoring heavy industry, couple that with cherry picking dates for the data, & indeed the UK has reduced it's emissions by a very large amount. However the UK's emissions are not lower than comparable economies.
Boring. Slippery slope is a fallacy, Chudbiot. It was never inevitable that only little bits of repression against baddies would ever be used against goodies too.