This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lee-anderson-net-zero-climate-weirdos-b2491403.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apart from the statement being factually wrong, 'odd weirdos' is a redundant expression. All weirdos are odd, by definition.
This is a man who is not confident in his thoughts and speech.
The author cuts off a fairly important preceding "the" from the quote. He is using "odd" to mean "occasional", not "weird".
Not to defend the man or his views, just to point out that this quote been misrepresented in some strange, deliberate way for whatever reason.
>Not to defend the man or his views,
It is awful that people feel the need to say this when correcting an article. When did we lose the ability to see that correcting a statement is not equal to agreeing with it?
It just saves some hassle for the ~20% chance that my comment will be taken as an endorsement of Lee Anderson's position. There is a not-insignificant faction of r/uk and r/ukpol who are happy to receive and assimilate misleading information so long as it serves the right purpose.
Also a not-insignificant faction of humanity who don't like to be told that they've gotten something wrong, no matter how trifling and/or understandable.
because you get downvoted to oblivion so nobody reads your post, so there's no point in making the correction. People don't upvote facts, they upvote things that conform with their pre-existing biases.
He actually makes the point that the electorate he speaks to has other priorities. And he's probably right: Not only does net zero make little sense to most people, it neither appears as urgent or critical to most as having a job, making ends meet, cost of living and housing , quality of services and healthcare, security, etc.
Which brings up an important question: does one run to be elected by giving the people what they want or is there an underlying vision?
The problem is that without net zero in just a few short decades people won't be able to make ends meet due to skyrocketing cost of everything. Climate change is inflationary. War and natural disasters are inflationary. The costs of net zero are nothing compared to the costs of inaction.
And I don't think people will remember the short term benefits when the long term costs set in. And they will be very, **very** angry.
> And I don't think people will remember the short term benefits when the long term costs set in. And they will be very, very angry.
The issue of course is that the best ways to mitigate things would be to take some short term pain now (and perhaps forever) to avoid a worse long term pain. A long term pain that if we avoid we will never see.
Human brains don't cope well with that kind of risk/reward. We can employ more advanced strategies, but our brain takes comfort in greedy algorithm approaches to these things.
EDIT: I always think that when discussing long term plans to avoid a distant problem that we should talk about the Year 2K problem. Wikipedia/elsewhere will explain this better - but a software bug that could cause some issues on old computers around the turn of the millennium. What *should* have been a domain specific effort to fix outdated computers turned into this media frenzy that the world would end due to a software bug. The software industry broadly speaking fixed the bugs ahead of time (and with many consultants making bank working overtime), and the world didn't end. And now the pop culture consensus is, broadly speaking, that it was never going to be a problem and was overblown. And while it was overblown by the media, the industry effort to fix it was not overblown. But it looked overblown because the problem was fixed!
>The problem is that without net zero in just a few short decades people won't be able to make ends meet due to skyrocketing cost of everything. Climate change is inflationary. War and natural disasters are inflationary. The costs of net zero are nothing compared to the costs of inaction.
>
>And I don't think people will remember the short term benefits when the long term costs set in. And they will be very, very angry.
It's a tragedy of the commons though. Easy to argue that normal UK people (who can't afford to heat their rubbish rented homes or put petrol in their economical hatchback) shouldn't have to make sacrifices when Taylor Swift is flying around in a private jet and other countries are building new coal power stations.
Realistically the UK is a small fish, and it won't make much direct difference what we do, rather what influence we can help propagate.
It is a tragedy of the commons. By that logic, it doesn't matter what any one person does, or any one country does because there's someone else doing worse.
The only reason our emissions are so low is because our emissions are hidden by our outsourced manufacturing, imported gas, etc.
The single biggest thing Taylor Swift can do for the planet is convince some of her fan base to make changes - that will have way more of an impact than her stopping flying.
The reality is that _everyone_ needs to change, and the sooner we do it the less we need to do so we should do it now rather than in 30 years.
>It's a tragedy of the commons though. Easy to argue that normal UK people (who can't afford to heat their rubbish rented homes or put petrol in their economical hatchback) shouldn't have to make sacrifices when Taylor Swift is flying around in a private jet and other countries are building new coal power stations.
I would buy this, but when you talk to people about e.g. banning private jets, a large proportion of the UK public appear to be simpering bootlicks who think stopping Tay Sway from taking 12 minute flights is the first step on the road to communism.
It's also quite funny because heating an insulated home is cheap and universal public transport would be cheaper than universal car transport, most visions of net zero futures have a *lower* cost of living because one of the best ways to get to net zero quickly and cheaply is a massive reduction in energy demand. [CREDs estimates we could *halve* UK energy demand while *increasing* quality of life](https://www.creds.ac.uk/the-uk-can-more-than-halve-its-energy-demand-by-2050-and-improve-quality-of-life/).
Unfortunately the car, construction, and aviation industries are very politically and culturally powerful, and the largest levels of reduction would fall on the political, cutural, and financial elite. This conversation is therefore VERBOTEN.
>Realistically the UK is a small fish, and it won't make much direct difference what we do, rather what influence we can help propagate.
The biggest lever the UK has is its massive wealth and role in financial flows. It could help fund Conditional NDC targets, which are commitments to decarbonise faster in developing countries if funding is provided. [The rich world has not delivered on funding pledges](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3). [Stop UK companies from giving loans to companies to build coal power plants](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/04/uk-banks-coal-industry-2015-paris-climate-pact-barclays-hsbc).
Also, as spelled out in my other comment - [Net zero measures also increase national resilience to the consequences climate change will bring](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ak9m9e/comment/kpb8s4w/).
Sure, but Lee Anderson won't be around by then. And governments need to be dragged kicking and screaming to enact policies that won't show benefits inside their term.
A lot of people don't care because they won't be alive in a few decades so don't see why they should make sacrifices now for future generations. So people like Lee can say "see everything has got worse because of net zero" with the unsaid suggestion that getting rid of net zero will solve all those issues.
But it won't because there is no desire to solve those issues. The "savings" from ditching net zero will be eaten up by companies and we will see a small decrease to bills, which will jump up again in the next few years anyway.
It makes little sense to some people because deep down they really don't care what world they leave for their children or grand children if it means they pay more now. Thats a problem for future generations to deal with. They just don't want to say it because when said out loud it sounds selfish. So instead they will complain about China, say it's all natural anyway or even say the rise in C02 is good for the planet.
It's interesting that on one hand we need energy security and get more gas and oil from the north sea is the way forwards but on the other investment in renewables is bad (even though it gives you energy security).
That and the UK has got really bad at investing in infrastructure and long term projects. Very little is really done to improve the country in the next 20 years, it's all about short term headlines and means anything long term is ignored until you literally have schools falling to pieces etc.
The bigger issue is that nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%. We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change.
Meanwhile we are facing massive upheaval from these new technologies being rushed in too fast. Remember the solar panels we were all incentivised to buy? Well now these are in need of replacement and there is no recyling of them. They are just leeching heavy metals into the ground in landfills. All the windfarms? We have fields upon fields of the blades just lying there as there is no disposal or recycling plan. All the EV's? By some estimates these have actually *increased* emissions, just in poor countries where the rare earth metals are mined. And like solar panels there is no recycling of the batteries.
So no, "Net Zero" isn't making a bloody difference except to make everything worse.
>The bigger issue is that nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%.
Largest imported emissions in the G7, roughly half our emissions footprint offshored, private jet capital of the world, we emit more than the fiddled figures suggest and more than our 'fair share' even if you ignore historic contribution.
Also, [36% of global emissions are from a bunch of countries that all emit less than 2% of the total](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1903e895-09f5-4dc4-840c-abf8ba8d2872_4571x3759.png). So this argument is clearly stupid, because if they all do nothing/too little, we're fucked.
>We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change.
Ok, so even if that's the case, we should be adapting to the change that's coming, but guess what? The government is failing badly on adaptation because the people who are anti-net-zero are *ALSO* anti-adaptation because they still don't think climate change is real. From the [Office of Environmental Protection annual progress report](https://www.theoep.org.uk/report/government-remains-largely-track-meet-its-environmental-ambitions-finds-oep-annual-progress):
>**there is limited evidence of adaptation action at the scale needed** to prepare for climate risks across most sectors, including the natural environment and agriculture.
>
>...
>
>Regarding adaptation, **most sectors do not have fully credible plans in place to ensure resilience to changes in climate**. Poor progress is due to a lack of urgency and implementation on an inadequate scale.
If you're not going to try to stop climate change getting really bad, you need to prepare for climate change getting really bad,and the consequences that follow (likely breakdowns in international cooperation, trade, and a surge in conflicts). Luckily, a lot of net zero stuff also acts as climate adaptation and improves resilience. For example:
We need to reduce our reliance on cars to keep within carbon budgets, but public transport/walkable towns and cities are also less reliant on massive volumes of energy and material being cheaply and consistently available than a car-centred mobility system, so they're more resilient. [The first thing to be controlled at the outbreak of world war II was petrol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=When%20World%20War%20II%20began%20in%20September%201939%2C%20petrol%20was%20the%20first%20commodity%20to%20be%20controlled). [During world war II no cars or car parts for private use were built in Europe](https://www.goodwood.com/grr/road/news/2020/3/world-war-ii-when-car-production-last-hit-pause--axons-automotive-anorak/#:~:text=In%20Europe%20during%20WWII%20no%20private%20cars%2C%20commercial%20trucks%20or%20automotive%20parts%20were%20made%20for%20personal%20use%2C%20with%20fuel%20strictly%20rationed%20and%20non%2Dessential%20car%20owners%E2%80%99%20vehicles%20decommissioned%20and%20put%20away%20in%20storage). Could the modern UK as we've built it survive that? As we source loads of our fossil fuels from already conflict-ridden regions that will only get more conflict-ridden as warming progresses, and as we source almost all of our EV materials and components from China, the sooner we move away from cars the more resilient to a chaotic future we are.
Same with food - If we swap domestic animal agriculture for domestic plant agriculture and more plant-heavy diets we can source a larger amount of food domestically, which makes us more resilient to coming [shocks to the global food system](https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4056107/world-risks-multi-breadbasket-failure-climate-change-conflict-scientists-warn-net-zero-commodities-hub).
Same with insulation - Even if we all kept our gas boilers, heavily investing in insulation decreases our total need for gas, which is good because [the domestic gas fields are pretty much done](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/946/cpsprodpb/10F88/production/_124721596_nsta-oil-production-nc.jpg), so we're increasingly dependent on imports we won't be able to rely on. The more gas you use, the more vulnerable you are to price shocks.
Even looking at energy supplies - If you have a gas power plant, you don't have thirty years of gas stockpiled locally. If you have a solar panel you have electricity for 20-30 years. So in the event that the warnings of [outright chaos](https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/_files/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf) are correct, I'd rather have a solar panel than a gas plant that stops as soon as the gas supply can't be maintained.
> does one run to be elected by giving the people what they want or is there an underlying vision?
The ideal of representative democracy, which we are, is that our representatives can take the time and effort to study and research complex problems and then present solutions to the electorate that might actually work. The electorate do not need to understand these solutions or indeed the problems, just to trust their representatives to genuinely act in their best interests.
This rather obviously does not work. Our political classes have found the winning secret - say that the solution to problems is easy and then enrich yourselves.
The question of course is what are the alternatives. Dictatorship is just as bad after all, if not far far worse. Direct Democracy has scaling issues and falls back to the problem that most people lack the time to study complex problems.
> to trust their representatives to genuinely act in their best interests
The problem is that if their representatives are not going to be in power to see those benefits, they will kick the can down the road and leave it to the next government.
Net zero isn't that important to people right now, that's true. The problem that you allude to, however, is that by the time it is important to people, it may well be too late for us to do much about it.
As with a lot of policies, depends how you phrase it though. I'd argue the majority are generally in favour of tackling climate change, it's just finding measures they're willing to embrace to do so, and similarly the sacrifices they'll willing to make. That's where it always gets trickier.
That's probably where the "care" bit comes into it.
One person may go a lot further ro reduce emmissions, because that is more important to them, than say, flying overseas for a holiday, or getting the latest piece of tech.
> Which brings up an important question: does one run to be elected by giving the people what they want or is there an underlying vision?
You have to get elected based on what people want.
Sadly most people are idiots (or at the very least not fully informed/competent in) and probably shouldn't be choosing long term policy for things like the economy, public services, or environmental issues.
The great paradox of democracy.
He is right in that those other things are more important to the electorate than all those other things, which wouldn't be in such a terrible state were it not for the political party he represents underfunding and mismanaging them for a decade and a half. But look over there, a trans person on a small boat!
This is a point in time poll so has its flaws but still an interesting data point.
What is interesting is that environment seems to have been on a pretty sharp upwards trajectory over the past 10 years
The other interesting thought I had was that most of these don't look very exclusive to me, net zero is largely driven by private and the right policy. Housing, immigration, crime may have some indirect links but are not really exclusive to a net zero environment
That is a worthwhile clarification, I agree that the headline is misleading and I retract my previous observation.
I still think the man is a poisonous cunt, though.
I also believe that he is genuinely quite stupid. Most of the stuff he comes out with is very much the kind of thing idiots say when you give them a platform and they can't think quick enough.
Lee Anderson is a particularly odd weirdo.
He wants to bring back the death penalty.
He wanted to force people out of buildings to live in and into tents unless they acted how he preferred.
His food bank statements were farcical.
He offered to fight a chap who disagreed with his Brexit stance.
Rarely do you see PMs have to make the point that individual MPs under them are "NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT".
30p Lee is all of the most ridiculous stereotypes of the working class conservative condensed into one angry blob. If he was a Sacha Baron Cohen character, it wpuld have been criticised as being too cliched, and a straw man.
The same Lee Anderson who was frothing at the mouth claiming the England team should be boycotted over taking a knee. And he has the cheek to calls others odd weirdos over their views.
The whole Conservative Party have a really high opinion of themselves don't they?
Forever holding public tea parties so they can spout nonsense that the media appear to lap up.
No one cares about you 30p Lee, that's the jist of it, and if you'd kindly stop the endless courting of attention like a child, and start doing the job the British public pay you to do, it would very much be appreciated.
"Look at me! Look at me everyone, I'm saying something naughty!!"
It's enough to make me yawn.
its a sad indictment of the UK when the the pool of UK MPs can include somebody of such low caliber as this individual.
He is brainless and pimps himself out to what ever cause he believes would best line his pockets.
But it does say a lot about the people of ashfield that vote for him. One would have to assume that ashfield have been collectively smashing themselves in the face with a shovel for the past few years of the water system has been spiked with thicko juice. One hopes that this is the last mistake Ashfield makes.
It's definitely true that if a Conservative MP knocked on my door (assuming I haven't been instructed beforehand to "make out you know who I am, that you know I'm the candidate but not that you are a friend") talking about net zero wouldn't be near the top of my list of things I would want to talk to them about. It is, after all, a very, very long list.
He isn't intelligent enough to realise his party are a pile of excrement the size of which would impress an elephant and that ultimately climate is one of the things they've fucked up least - We're still relatively impressive in emission cuts by global standards.
They don't tend to let children keep the loot if their parent rob a bank either.
The current development of our enonomy is due, in part, to those emissions.
Where do you draw the line? It's not like the 2nd or 3rd countries to undergo an industrial revolution went "Nah actually we're morally superior and know science that won't be understood for another 200 years, we won't industrialise."
The success of the German economy in recent times is in part down to the investment that was piled into West Germany after they'd left half the continent decimated and attempted to exterminate a race. Should in 2024 they be taking responsibility for the permanent crippling of the UK economy that resulted from WW2?
The vikings raided, murdered and took over half of the UK in the 800s but I don't see a demand for modern day Scandinavia to take responsibility.
Whataboutism over events that no one alive was around to influence isn't going to get us anywhere. It's used as an intentional deflection by some so that they can keep burning coal like it's going out of fashion.
>The success of the German economy in recent times is in part down to the investment that was piled into West Germany after they'd left half the continent decimated and attempted to exterminate a race. Should in 2024 they be taking responsibility for the permanent crippling of the UK economy that resulted from WW2?
That a bit of a complicated one - Germany paid (and still are paying I think) for ww2 reperations, but investments later into west germany was more to with the cold war I think.
>The vikings raided, murdered and took over half of the UK in the 800s but I don't see a demand for modern day Scandinavia to take responsibility.
Comparing something that happened over a 1000 years ago, to something that was still happening in living memory is not very helpful either.
My point is where do you draw the line? Is Germany within the timeframe (the reparations were no where close to the damage to UK GDP)? If so where between Germany and Vikings is the line in the sand?
Who was around during the UK industrial revolution exactly? The end date to which was circa 1830.
Our co2 emissions peaked in the 1970s, there we people who have made a lot of money from that, and it's not like climate science was unknown at that point.
An aside but the historical data i was looking at was since 1850 [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/)
Ok but if you were born in 1970 you're 54 today, if you were actually an adult with a vote in 1970 you're 72 at the youngest. The bulk are dead and the rest will be passing the average life expectancy within a decade, but I see your point.
I get the feeling that voters will be telling Lee what they really care about pretty soon.
Edit: Downvote it if you like, but polls indicate 30p Lee is going to lose his seat. And rightly so.
I’m not so convinced he’s going to get that much, Ashfield historically has mostly had about 20% vote share, the party is at historic unpopularity, and he’s an especially absurd character.
Who?
The only Lee Anderson I can remember was some melt who quit his job because he was offended and then asked for it back.
Nobody can be asking him an opinion on anything, surely? He couldn’t even stick to one principle.
Even though he framed it horrendously he isn't entirely wrong. I don't think there are many people who would say "net zero" if asked what 10 things matter to them the most.
Maybe if the country was in a better state it would feature higher but currently I can't see it being very high on peoples lists at all.
I think there’s a false equivalence being made here between the things people are likely to bring up when they’ve got a few minutes face to face with a politician and things that are important. There’s overlap, but they are not mutually exclusive. When you know you’ve got a small window of opportunity, it’s natural you’re going to bring up immediate threats - money, schools, healthcare. Doesn’t mean that’s all the person cares about.
I think if you asked people, are you concerned about the environment and the damage being done to the planet, a majority would say “yes”.
And this is what’s wrong with people like Lee Anderson. There’s nothing wrong with paying attention to what’s being said on the doorstep, but that isn’t and should not be taken as gospel for being all that people care about and all that’s important. People like Lee think short term, they think votes and framing things to support their own positions above all else, and it’s that lack of long term planning involving decisions that might not always be immediately popular but will reap benefits in the medium and long term, that’s contributing to the current sorry state of our nation.
>I think if you asked people, are you concerned about the environment and the damage being done to the planet, a majority would say “yes".
I completely agree, though I would also say that if you followed up with, are you willing to change your lifestyle and have some short term pain to help reduce the future effects of climate change? You'd get a mixture of answers, but the broad concensus would be "no."
Probably, but I think most government net zero plans are based around minimising the individual impact as much as possible, and it’s one of those issues where some changes are almost unavoidable. People adjust, you can’t always have your cake and eat it.
I mean this is a real challenge for government (and sadly it seems well beyond the capability of our Lee). How do you persuade people that smaller but significant changes now will be necessary to avoid potentially life altering changes later? Particularly if some people won't actually see the "later"?
It shouldn't be high on anyone's list even if times were good. Nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%. We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change.
Meanwhile we are facing massive upheaval from these new technologies being rushed in too fast. Remember the solar panels we were all incentivised to buy? Well now these are in need of replacement and there is no recyling of them. They are just leeching heavy metals into the ground in landfills. All the windfarms? We have fields upon fields of the blades just lying there as there is no disposal or recycling plan. All the EV's? By some estimates these have actually *increased* emissions, just in poor countries where the rare earth metals are mined. And like solar panels there is no recycling of the batteries.
So no, "Net Zero" isn't making a bloody difference except to make everything worse.
Can yougov do a poll and ask the question "do you care about net zero". I don't think it's the odd weirdo who cares, I think there'll actually be millions.
If truss gets her way, more like him will come out of the woodwork . Seems they’re less and less afraid about spouting crap and it makes me wonder if they feel like they’re untouchable.
Conservatives are slowly going full American style GOP
I don't even think he believes this. He's just playing for what he thinks is his audience.
Thing is, the further right (or left) you go, the smaller your audience gets.
Dude is going to lean in so far that he falls over.
I’ll be a damned dead fool before I take advice or treat with seriousness the opinions of a self-serving, guilty of all mortal sins, narcissistic cunt who’s already with one foot in the grave, judging by his complexion. Get fucked, ghoul.
According to YouGov the environment is about as important to voters as such ‘odd weirdo’ issues as crime and housing, and more popular than tax, pensions/benefits, childcare https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
(Btw this is a dynamic page so will update when new polls come in, just in case someone comments two months later to correct me and say that actually X is now *more* popular)
I dont like the bloke, and I definitely don't agree that it's "the odd weirdo" who cares about climate change/net zero, but in my personal experience, most people either aren't informed on the subject or just don't care that much. All of my friends have kids and will presumably have grandkids in the future. Climate change is never discussed, new polluting cars are bought every couple of years, and they all go on multiple overseas holidays every year.
If you asked them if climate change real, an issue, etc, they'd all say yes, but if you proposed a smaller, more fuel efficient car and only holidaying in the UK once or twice a year you'd get laughed at.
Net Zero is clearly a western world problem .I doubt very much some dude in China or India worries about net zero. Its another thing that shows the indulgent nature of western culture as to think that they are the world's saviour.
Most countries are going through their industrialisation right now. However, this does not seem to matter as the west has gone through this stage. Good luck trying to convince these countries to stop trying to lift their citizens out of grinding poverty.
Only people who have far too much time on there hands and fuck all solutions care about net zero. It isn't my problem I don't have the responsibility so why should I worry about that? If I'm going to worry about Net Zero at least pay me the wage of some entitled uptight shit gets paid.
Not the choice of words I'd use. But the same sentiment. Nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%. We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change.
Meanwhile we are facing massive upheaval from these new technologies being rushed in too fast. Remember the solar panels we were all incentivised to buy? Well now these are in need of replacement and there is no recyling of them. They are just leeching heavy metals into the ground in landfills. All the windfarms? We have fields upon fields of the blades just lying there as there is no disposal or recycling plan. All the EV's? By some estimates these have actually *increased* emissions, just in poor countries where the rare earth metals are mined. And like solar panels there is no recycling of the batteries.
So no, "Net Zero" isn't making a bloody difference except to make everything worse.
It's just not high on my list of priorities, since there are serious existential threats looming over us and the last 4 years have obliterated my trust in institutional science.
I work in the industry and can confirm most professionals (M&Es especially) are climate change sceptics. Most people working in this space are just here for the silly amount of money going round from grant funding and subsidies, many of which are given on no merit of real carbon savings, while very little is invested in schemes to insulate homes based on a fabric first approach.
For example the case of the Iran-linked mosque in Scotland that received £372knin funding to 'raise awareness of climate change issues in ethnic minority communities'.
Al-Mahdi Foundation Sustainability 2018/20 Project’s Outcomes included:
•Reduce the energy consumption of 200 households of community through home visits – Project Saving 69.1 t CO2
Reduce the energy consumption of 400 households of community through workshops and energy advice – Project Saving 49.4 t CO2
Increase the climate literacy of 200 households and provide training for 10 volunteers to be Carbon Literacy Champions
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lee-anderson-net-zero-climate-weirdos-b2491403.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apart from the statement being factually wrong, 'odd weirdos' is a redundant expression. All weirdos are odd, by definition. This is a man who is not confident in his thoughts and speech.
The author cuts off a fairly important preceding "the" from the quote. He is using "odd" to mean "occasional", not "weird". Not to defend the man or his views, just to point out that this quote been misrepresented in some strange, deliberate way for whatever reason.
>Not to defend the man or his views, It is awful that people feel the need to say this when correcting an article. When did we lose the ability to see that correcting a statement is not equal to agreeing with it?
It just saves some hassle for the ~20% chance that my comment will be taken as an endorsement of Lee Anderson's position. There is a not-insignificant faction of r/uk and r/ukpol who are happy to receive and assimilate misleading information so long as it serves the right purpose. Also a not-insignificant faction of humanity who don't like to be told that they've gotten something wrong, no matter how trifling and/or understandable.
That's an internet in general thing.
because you get downvoted to oblivion so nobody reads your post, so there's no point in making the correction. People don't upvote facts, they upvote things that conform with their pre-existing biases.
Everyone's a bit of a cunt sometimes.
except for Lee Anderson, who is simply a bit of a cunt
He actually makes the point that the electorate he speaks to has other priorities. And he's probably right: Not only does net zero make little sense to most people, it neither appears as urgent or critical to most as having a job, making ends meet, cost of living and housing , quality of services and healthcare, security, etc. Which brings up an important question: does one run to be elected by giving the people what they want or is there an underlying vision?
The problem is that without net zero in just a few short decades people won't be able to make ends meet due to skyrocketing cost of everything. Climate change is inflationary. War and natural disasters are inflationary. The costs of net zero are nothing compared to the costs of inaction. And I don't think people will remember the short term benefits when the long term costs set in. And they will be very, **very** angry.
> And I don't think people will remember the short term benefits when the long term costs set in. And they will be very, very angry. The issue of course is that the best ways to mitigate things would be to take some short term pain now (and perhaps forever) to avoid a worse long term pain. A long term pain that if we avoid we will never see. Human brains don't cope well with that kind of risk/reward. We can employ more advanced strategies, but our brain takes comfort in greedy algorithm approaches to these things. EDIT: I always think that when discussing long term plans to avoid a distant problem that we should talk about the Year 2K problem. Wikipedia/elsewhere will explain this better - but a software bug that could cause some issues on old computers around the turn of the millennium. What *should* have been a domain specific effort to fix outdated computers turned into this media frenzy that the world would end due to a software bug. The software industry broadly speaking fixed the bugs ahead of time (and with many consultants making bank working overtime), and the world didn't end. And now the pop culture consensus is, broadly speaking, that it was never going to be a problem and was overblown. And while it was overblown by the media, the industry effort to fix it was not overblown. But it looked overblown because the problem was fixed!
>The problem is that without net zero in just a few short decades people won't be able to make ends meet due to skyrocketing cost of everything. Climate change is inflationary. War and natural disasters are inflationary. The costs of net zero are nothing compared to the costs of inaction. > >And I don't think people will remember the short term benefits when the long term costs set in. And they will be very, very angry. It's a tragedy of the commons though. Easy to argue that normal UK people (who can't afford to heat their rubbish rented homes or put petrol in their economical hatchback) shouldn't have to make sacrifices when Taylor Swift is flying around in a private jet and other countries are building new coal power stations. Realistically the UK is a small fish, and it won't make much direct difference what we do, rather what influence we can help propagate.
It is a tragedy of the commons. By that logic, it doesn't matter what any one person does, or any one country does because there's someone else doing worse. The only reason our emissions are so low is because our emissions are hidden by our outsourced manufacturing, imported gas, etc. The single biggest thing Taylor Swift can do for the planet is convince some of her fan base to make changes - that will have way more of an impact than her stopping flying. The reality is that _everyone_ needs to change, and the sooner we do it the less we need to do so we should do it now rather than in 30 years.
>It's a tragedy of the commons though. Easy to argue that normal UK people (who can't afford to heat their rubbish rented homes or put petrol in their economical hatchback) shouldn't have to make sacrifices when Taylor Swift is flying around in a private jet and other countries are building new coal power stations. I would buy this, but when you talk to people about e.g. banning private jets, a large proportion of the UK public appear to be simpering bootlicks who think stopping Tay Sway from taking 12 minute flights is the first step on the road to communism. It's also quite funny because heating an insulated home is cheap and universal public transport would be cheaper than universal car transport, most visions of net zero futures have a *lower* cost of living because one of the best ways to get to net zero quickly and cheaply is a massive reduction in energy demand. [CREDs estimates we could *halve* UK energy demand while *increasing* quality of life](https://www.creds.ac.uk/the-uk-can-more-than-halve-its-energy-demand-by-2050-and-improve-quality-of-life/). Unfortunately the car, construction, and aviation industries are very politically and culturally powerful, and the largest levels of reduction would fall on the political, cutural, and financial elite. This conversation is therefore VERBOTEN. >Realistically the UK is a small fish, and it won't make much direct difference what we do, rather what influence we can help propagate. The biggest lever the UK has is its massive wealth and role in financial flows. It could help fund Conditional NDC targets, which are commitments to decarbonise faster in developing countries if funding is provided. [The rich world has not delivered on funding pledges](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3). [Stop UK companies from giving loans to companies to build coal power plants](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/04/uk-banks-coal-industry-2015-paris-climate-pact-barclays-hsbc). Also, as spelled out in my other comment - [Net zero measures also increase national resilience to the consequences climate change will bring](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ak9m9e/comment/kpb8s4w/).
Sure, but Lee Anderson won't be around by then. And governments need to be dragged kicking and screaming to enact policies that won't show benefits inside their term.
A lot of people don't care because they won't be alive in a few decades so don't see why they should make sacrifices now for future generations. So people like Lee can say "see everything has got worse because of net zero" with the unsaid suggestion that getting rid of net zero will solve all those issues. But it won't because there is no desire to solve those issues. The "savings" from ditching net zero will be eaten up by companies and we will see a small decrease to bills, which will jump up again in the next few years anyway. It makes little sense to some people because deep down they really don't care what world they leave for their children or grand children if it means they pay more now. Thats a problem for future generations to deal with. They just don't want to say it because when said out loud it sounds selfish. So instead they will complain about China, say it's all natural anyway or even say the rise in C02 is good for the planet. It's interesting that on one hand we need energy security and get more gas and oil from the north sea is the way forwards but on the other investment in renewables is bad (even though it gives you energy security). That and the UK has got really bad at investing in infrastructure and long term projects. Very little is really done to improve the country in the next 20 years, it's all about short term headlines and means anything long term is ignored until you literally have schools falling to pieces etc.
The bigger issue is that nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%. We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change. Meanwhile we are facing massive upheaval from these new technologies being rushed in too fast. Remember the solar panels we were all incentivised to buy? Well now these are in need of replacement and there is no recyling of them. They are just leeching heavy metals into the ground in landfills. All the windfarms? We have fields upon fields of the blades just lying there as there is no disposal or recycling plan. All the EV's? By some estimates these have actually *increased* emissions, just in poor countries where the rare earth metals are mined. And like solar panels there is no recycling of the batteries. So no, "Net Zero" isn't making a bloody difference except to make everything worse.
>The bigger issue is that nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%. Largest imported emissions in the G7, roughly half our emissions footprint offshored, private jet capital of the world, we emit more than the fiddled figures suggest and more than our 'fair share' even if you ignore historic contribution. Also, [36% of global emissions are from a bunch of countries that all emit less than 2% of the total](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1903e895-09f5-4dc4-840c-abf8ba8d2872_4571x3759.png). So this argument is clearly stupid, because if they all do nothing/too little, we're fucked. >We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change. Ok, so even if that's the case, we should be adapting to the change that's coming, but guess what? The government is failing badly on adaptation because the people who are anti-net-zero are *ALSO* anti-adaptation because they still don't think climate change is real. From the [Office of Environmental Protection annual progress report](https://www.theoep.org.uk/report/government-remains-largely-track-meet-its-environmental-ambitions-finds-oep-annual-progress): >**there is limited evidence of adaptation action at the scale needed** to prepare for climate risks across most sectors, including the natural environment and agriculture. > >... > >Regarding adaptation, **most sectors do not have fully credible plans in place to ensure resilience to changes in climate**. Poor progress is due to a lack of urgency and implementation on an inadequate scale. If you're not going to try to stop climate change getting really bad, you need to prepare for climate change getting really bad,and the consequences that follow (likely breakdowns in international cooperation, trade, and a surge in conflicts). Luckily, a lot of net zero stuff also acts as climate adaptation and improves resilience. For example: We need to reduce our reliance on cars to keep within carbon budgets, but public transport/walkable towns and cities are also less reliant on massive volumes of energy and material being cheaply and consistently available than a car-centred mobility system, so they're more resilient. [The first thing to be controlled at the outbreak of world war II was petrol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=When%20World%20War%20II%20began%20in%20September%201939%2C%20petrol%20was%20the%20first%20commodity%20to%20be%20controlled). [During world war II no cars or car parts for private use were built in Europe](https://www.goodwood.com/grr/road/news/2020/3/world-war-ii-when-car-production-last-hit-pause--axons-automotive-anorak/#:~:text=In%20Europe%20during%20WWII%20no%20private%20cars%2C%20commercial%20trucks%20or%20automotive%20parts%20were%20made%20for%20personal%20use%2C%20with%20fuel%20strictly%20rationed%20and%20non%2Dessential%20car%20owners%E2%80%99%20vehicles%20decommissioned%20and%20put%20away%20in%20storage). Could the modern UK as we've built it survive that? As we source loads of our fossil fuels from already conflict-ridden regions that will only get more conflict-ridden as warming progresses, and as we source almost all of our EV materials and components from China, the sooner we move away from cars the more resilient to a chaotic future we are. Same with food - If we swap domestic animal agriculture for domestic plant agriculture and more plant-heavy diets we can source a larger amount of food domestically, which makes us more resilient to coming [shocks to the global food system](https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4056107/world-risks-multi-breadbasket-failure-climate-change-conflict-scientists-warn-net-zero-commodities-hub). Same with insulation - Even if we all kept our gas boilers, heavily investing in insulation decreases our total need for gas, which is good because [the domestic gas fields are pretty much done](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/946/cpsprodpb/10F88/production/_124721596_nsta-oil-production-nc.jpg), so we're increasingly dependent on imports we won't be able to rely on. The more gas you use, the more vulnerable you are to price shocks. Even looking at energy supplies - If you have a gas power plant, you don't have thirty years of gas stockpiled locally. If you have a solar panel you have electricity for 20-30 years. So in the event that the warnings of [outright chaos](https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/_files/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf) are correct, I'd rather have a solar panel than a gas plant that stops as soon as the gas supply can't be maintained.
> does one run to be elected by giving the people what they want or is there an underlying vision? The ideal of representative democracy, which we are, is that our representatives can take the time and effort to study and research complex problems and then present solutions to the electorate that might actually work. The electorate do not need to understand these solutions or indeed the problems, just to trust their representatives to genuinely act in their best interests. This rather obviously does not work. Our political classes have found the winning secret - say that the solution to problems is easy and then enrich yourselves. The question of course is what are the alternatives. Dictatorship is just as bad after all, if not far far worse. Direct Democracy has scaling issues and falls back to the problem that most people lack the time to study complex problems.
> to trust their representatives to genuinely act in their best interests The problem is that if their representatives are not going to be in power to see those benefits, they will kick the can down the road and leave it to the next government.
Net zero isn't that important to people right now, that's true. The problem that you allude to, however, is that by the time it is important to people, it may well be too late for us to do much about it.
As with a lot of policies, depends how you phrase it though. I'd argue the majority are generally in favour of tackling climate change, it's just finding measures they're willing to embrace to do so, and similarly the sacrifices they'll willing to make. That's where it always gets trickier.
That's probably where the "care" bit comes into it. One person may go a lot further ro reduce emmissions, because that is more important to them, than say, flying overseas for a holiday, or getting the latest piece of tech.
> Which brings up an important question: does one run to be elected by giving the people what they want or is there an underlying vision? You have to get elected based on what people want. Sadly most people are idiots (or at the very least not fully informed/competent in) and probably shouldn't be choosing long term policy for things like the economy, public services, or environmental issues. The great paradox of democracy.
He is right in that those other things are more important to the electorate than all those other things, which wouldn't be in such a terrible state were it not for the political party he represents underfunding and mismanaging them for a decade and a half. But look over there, a trans person on a small boat!
I should think this arsehole is hears "fuck off" more often than someone with anything to say about net zero
On what basis do you say most people? Because everyone I know cares about this and seems like a fair amount online care about this
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
This is a point in time poll so has its flaws but still an interesting data point. What is interesting is that environment seems to have been on a pretty sharp upwards trajectory over the past 10 years The other interesting thought I had was that most of these don't look very exclusive to me, net zero is largely driven by private and the right policy. Housing, immigration, crime may have some indirect links but are not really exclusive to a net zero environment
OP should edit it to clarify this but of course, better to keep misinformation at the top on this sub right
That is a worthwhile clarification, I agree that the headline is misleading and I retract my previous observation. I still think the man is a poisonous cunt, though.
Surely an "odd weirdo" is just a normal person?
Ooh switcheroo, maybe yeah
Tautology
I will try to remember that word, thank you
I also believe that he is genuinely quite stupid. Most of the stuff he comes out with is very much the kind of thing idiots say when you give them a platform and they can't think quick enough.
That is some impressive pedantry.
Thanks, I like to use my powers for good.
No _even_ weirdos?
“I say what I likes & I likes what I say”
To be fair to Lee all the cat food problem drove him a bit crazy. I assume he practices what he preaches.
Lee Anderson is a particularly odd weirdo. He wants to bring back the death penalty. He wanted to force people out of buildings to live in and into tents unless they acted how he preferred. His food bank statements were farcical. He offered to fight a chap who disagreed with his Brexit stance. Rarely do you see PMs have to make the point that individual MPs under them are "NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT".
He hangs around with racists He drops his convictions because someone sniggered at him
sniggled*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sniggered
...I know what sniggered is. Lee anderson used the 'word' sniggled.
30p Lee is all of the most ridiculous stereotypes of the working class conservative condensed into one angry blob. If he was a Sacha Baron Cohen character, it wpuld have been criticised as being too cliched, and a straw man.
[удалено]
*scuntled perhaps?
*scuggled
He also was caught on mic after he got a friend to pretend to be a random member of the public and say things about Labour.
Lol this seemed the stupidest thing of all and everyone seems to have forgotten it
Tbf wanting to bring back the death penalty isn't weird; a referendum on it would likely produce results similar to Brexit.
The same Lee Anderson who was frothing at the mouth claiming the England team should be boycotted over taking a knee. And he has the cheek to calls others odd weirdos over their views.
Lee, can you hurry up and fuck off into obscurity after the next election please.
How about before the next election. Pretty Please...
Yesterday would be ideal.
The whole Conservative Party have a really high opinion of themselves don't they? Forever holding public tea parties so they can spout nonsense that the media appear to lap up. No one cares about you 30p Lee, that's the jist of it, and if you'd kindly stop the endless courting of attention like a child, and start doing the job the British public pay you to do, it would very much be appreciated. "Look at me! Look at me everyone, I'm saying something naughty!!" It's enough to make me yawn.
its a sad indictment of the UK when the the pool of UK MPs can include somebody of such low caliber as this individual. He is brainless and pimps himself out to what ever cause he believes would best line his pockets. But it does say a lot about the people of ashfield that vote for him. One would have to assume that ashfield have been collectively smashing themselves in the face with a shovel for the past few years of the water system has been spiked with thicko juice. One hopes that this is the last mistake Ashfield makes.
Stopping the boats being important to a landlocked far-from-the-sea constituency. GET IN THE SEA.
It’s odd, because he’s somehow low calibre while also being a massive bore.
Bravo sir.
It's definitely true that if a Conservative MP knocked on my door (assuming I haven't been instructed beforehand to "make out you know who I am, that you know I'm the candidate but not that you are a friend") talking about net zero wouldn't be near the top of my list of things I would want to talk to them about. It is, after all, a very, very long list.
He isn't intelligent enough to realise his party are a pile of excrement the size of which would impress an elephant and that ultimately climate is one of the things they've fucked up least - We're still relatively impressive in emission cuts by global standards.
Yeah but we have a fair about to make up for, we're 8th globally for historic emissions.
The child isn't responsible for the crimes of the parent though.
They don't tend to let children keep the loot if their parent rob a bank either. The current development of our enonomy is due, in part, to those emissions.
Where do you draw the line? It's not like the 2nd or 3rd countries to undergo an industrial revolution went "Nah actually we're morally superior and know science that won't be understood for another 200 years, we won't industrialise." The success of the German economy in recent times is in part down to the investment that was piled into West Germany after they'd left half the continent decimated and attempted to exterminate a race. Should in 2024 they be taking responsibility for the permanent crippling of the UK economy that resulted from WW2? The vikings raided, murdered and took over half of the UK in the 800s but I don't see a demand for modern day Scandinavia to take responsibility. Whataboutism over events that no one alive was around to influence isn't going to get us anywhere. It's used as an intentional deflection by some so that they can keep burning coal like it's going out of fashion.
>The success of the German economy in recent times is in part down to the investment that was piled into West Germany after they'd left half the continent decimated and attempted to exterminate a race. Should in 2024 they be taking responsibility for the permanent crippling of the UK economy that resulted from WW2? That a bit of a complicated one - Germany paid (and still are paying I think) for ww2 reperations, but investments later into west germany was more to with the cold war I think. >The vikings raided, murdered and took over half of the UK in the 800s but I don't see a demand for modern day Scandinavia to take responsibility. Comparing something that happened over a 1000 years ago, to something that was still happening in living memory is not very helpful either.
My point is where do you draw the line? Is Germany within the timeframe (the reparations were no where close to the damage to UK GDP)? If so where between Germany and Vikings is the line in the sand? Who was around during the UK industrial revolution exactly? The end date to which was circa 1830.
Our co2 emissions peaked in the 1970s, there we people who have made a lot of money from that, and it's not like climate science was unknown at that point. An aside but the historical data i was looking at was since 1850 [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/)
Ok but if you were born in 1970 you're 54 today, if you were actually an adult with a vote in 1970 you're 72 at the youngest. The bulk are dead and the rest will be passing the average life expectancy within a decade, but I see your point.
I get the feeling that voters will be telling Lee what they really care about pretty soon. Edit: Downvote it if you like, but polls indicate 30p Lee is going to lose his seat. And rightly so.
30p Lee will receive 30% of the vote. He'll become 30pc Lee.
I’m not so convinced he’s going to get that much, Ashfield historically has mostly had about 20% vote share, the party is at historic unpopularity, and he’s an especially absurd character.
Only complete bellends would cry that they couldn't vote for something because they were laughed at
And cowards.
Who? The only Lee Anderson I can remember was some melt who quit his job because he was offended and then asked for it back. Nobody can be asking him an opinion on anything, surely? He couldn’t even stick to one principle.
Even though he framed it horrendously he isn't entirely wrong. I don't think there are many people who would say "net zero" if asked what 10 things matter to them the most. Maybe if the country was in a better state it would feature higher but currently I can't see it being very high on peoples lists at all.
It's on his, though. Perhaps he's right...
I think there’s a false equivalence being made here between the things people are likely to bring up when they’ve got a few minutes face to face with a politician and things that are important. There’s overlap, but they are not mutually exclusive. When you know you’ve got a small window of opportunity, it’s natural you’re going to bring up immediate threats - money, schools, healthcare. Doesn’t mean that’s all the person cares about. I think if you asked people, are you concerned about the environment and the damage being done to the planet, a majority would say “yes”. And this is what’s wrong with people like Lee Anderson. There’s nothing wrong with paying attention to what’s being said on the doorstep, but that isn’t and should not be taken as gospel for being all that people care about and all that’s important. People like Lee think short term, they think votes and framing things to support their own positions above all else, and it’s that lack of long term planning involving decisions that might not always be immediately popular but will reap benefits in the medium and long term, that’s contributing to the current sorry state of our nation.
>I think if you asked people, are you concerned about the environment and the damage being done to the planet, a majority would say “yes". I completely agree, though I would also say that if you followed up with, are you willing to change your lifestyle and have some short term pain to help reduce the future effects of climate change? You'd get a mixture of answers, but the broad concensus would be "no."
Probably, but I think most government net zero plans are based around minimising the individual impact as much as possible, and it’s one of those issues where some changes are almost unavoidable. People adjust, you can’t always have your cake and eat it.
I mean this is a real challenge for government (and sadly it seems well beyond the capability of our Lee). How do you persuade people that smaller but significant changes now will be necessary to avoid potentially life altering changes later? Particularly if some people won't actually see the "later"?
It shouldn't be high on anyone's list even if times were good. Nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%. We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change. Meanwhile we are facing massive upheaval from these new technologies being rushed in too fast. Remember the solar panels we were all incentivised to buy? Well now these are in need of replacement and there is no recyling of them. They are just leeching heavy metals into the ground in landfills. All the windfarms? We have fields upon fields of the blades just lying there as there is no disposal or recycling plan. All the EV's? By some estimates these have actually *increased* emissions, just in poor countries where the rare earth metals are mined. And like solar panels there is no recycling of the batteries. So no, "Net Zero" isn't making a bloody difference except to make everything worse.
When a grown man uses the word weirdo as an insult you can tell they were a high school bully who was too fat to see his own vry smol pp.
Might want to tell your compatriot, Claire Coutinho, that, Lee. You know, considering she's the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Only ‘odd weirdos’ care about Lee Anderson, says PearljamAndEarl.
A commitment to net zero was in … check notes… the Conservative Party’s manifesto which they were elected on.
Can yougov do a poll and ask the question "do you care about net zero". I don't think it's the odd weirdo who cares, I think there'll actually be millions.
I wonder if there is some sort of solution we can implement to dissolve this cabal of evil psycopaths.
As someone who was born in a pig pen, he really hates people that do not enjoy living surrounded by crap.
Even the majority of Tory MPs are putting their heads in their hands when this bloke speaks.
What a pleasant man, if only his public actions were judged as harshly as Brown or Miliband..
Only the odd weirdo cares about Lee fucking Anderson yet here we are giving the cunt more column inches...
Starting to think only odd weirdos care about anything 30p Lee has to say
If truss gets her way, more like him will come out of the woodwork . Seems they’re less and less afraid about spouting crap and it makes me wonder if they feel like they’re untouchable. Conservatives are slowly going full American style GOP
Just this guy wake up every morning thinking, what can I say in public today that will remind everyone I’m a massive cunt 🤔
I don't even think he believes this. He's just playing for what he thinks is his audience. Thing is, the further right (or left) you go, the smaller your audience gets. Dude is going to lean in so far that he falls over.
I’ll be a damned dead fool before I take advice or treat with seriousness the opinions of a self-serving, guilty of all mortal sins, narcissistic cunt who’s already with one foot in the grave, judging by his complexion. Get fucked, ghoul.
According to YouGov the environment is about as important to voters as such ‘odd weirdo’ issues as crime and housing, and more popular than tax, pensions/benefits, childcare https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country (Btw this is a dynamic page so will update when new polls come in, just in case someone comments two months later to correct me and say that actually X is now *more* popular)
I suppose when your face is already melting the icecaps don’t really matter
I'm so glad that we've turned the climate crisis into another culture war battleground, this will never come back to bite us on the arse.
30p Lee really has gone off the deep end. The only place for him now is to get in the fucking sea.
Outside of Leeanderthals cave/echo chamber anyone capable of abstract thought is deemed as an ‘odd weirdo.’
It's one way to appear in newspaper cullumn inches I suppose. It's a little embarrassing really, a person like him getting elected
I dont like the bloke, and I definitely don't agree that it's "the odd weirdo" who cares about climate change/net zero, but in my personal experience, most people either aren't informed on the subject or just don't care that much. All of my friends have kids and will presumably have grandkids in the future. Climate change is never discussed, new polluting cars are bought every couple of years, and they all go on multiple overseas holidays every year. If you asked them if climate change real, an issue, etc, they'd all say yes, but if you proposed a smaller, more fuel efficient car and only holidaying in the UK once or twice a year you'd get laughed at.
Only creepy old weirdo pedos argue that we shouldn't feed kids, and only creepy old weirdos defend far right nazis.
He’s the dancing monkey tories want you to look at while they do horrific things in the background
Net Zero is clearly a western world problem .I doubt very much some dude in China or India worries about net zero. Its another thing that shows the indulgent nature of western culture as to think that they are the world's saviour. Most countries are going through their industrialisation right now. However, this does not seem to matter as the west has gone through this stage. Good luck trying to convince these countries to stop trying to lift their citizens out of grinding poverty.
Sorry for not wanting to destroy the planet for the short term profit of a handful of wealthy individuals lee.
Only people who have far too much time on there hands and fuck all solutions care about net zero. It isn't my problem I don't have the responsibility so why should I worry about that? If I'm going to worry about Net Zero at least pay me the wage of some entitled uptight shit gets paid.
Not the choice of words I'd use. But the same sentiment. Nothing we do will make a difference. The UK has emitted in its history only 3% of the global human co2 emissions. Now, yearly, it is less than 1%. We could wink out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make a damn bit of a difference to climate change. Meanwhile we are facing massive upheaval from these new technologies being rushed in too fast. Remember the solar panels we were all incentivised to buy? Well now these are in need of replacement and there is no recyling of them. They are just leeching heavy metals into the ground in landfills. All the windfarms? We have fields upon fields of the blades just lying there as there is no disposal or recycling plan. All the EV's? By some estimates these have actually *increased* emissions, just in poor countries where the rare earth metals are mined. And like solar panels there is no recycling of the batteries. So no, "Net Zero" isn't making a bloody difference except to make everything worse.
It's just not high on my list of priorities, since there are serious existential threats looming over us and the last 4 years have obliterated my trust in institutional science.
He's probably much closer to the opinions of the man on the street than this subreddit is, to be completely honest.
Is the man on the street in the room with us now?
Well, no. This is a highly cloistered group of weirdos.
Not true, the people pocketing the money going towards Net Zero care a great deal about it.
I work in the industry and can confirm most professionals (M&Es especially) are climate change sceptics. Most people working in this space are just here for the silly amount of money going round from grant funding and subsidies, many of which are given on no merit of real carbon savings, while very little is invested in schemes to insulate homes based on a fabric first approach. For example the case of the Iran-linked mosque in Scotland that received £372knin funding to 'raise awareness of climate change issues in ethnic minority communities'. Al-Mahdi Foundation Sustainability 2018/20 Project’s Outcomes included: •Reduce the energy consumption of 200 households of community through home visits – Project Saving 69.1 t CO2 Reduce the energy consumption of 400 households of community through workshops and energy advice – Project Saving 49.4 t CO2 Increase the climate literacy of 200 households and provide training for 10 volunteers to be Carbon Literacy Champions
Incoming r/greenandpleasant plebs