• Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seemed to me that Starmer falls in the “I don’t really believe there’s a climate catastrophe happening” camp.

    If he did, he wouldn’t say stuff like this or - more importantly - avoid adopting policies that require immediate action when he gets into power.

    “Tree huggers” = people who believe the climate catastrophe is an imminent existential crisis.

    • dad@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Tree Huggers” to me is a short hand for Group 1 but that is subjective and either of us could be right.

      I think it is a big claim to say Starmer doesn’t believe in the climate catastrophe, we should probably have a bit more evidence before making such a claim.

      • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t know why you’d think that given that the language is used specifically in rejection of miliband’s green agenda which includes extensive investment in green energy.

        You seem to have both set up a weird “group 1” strawman (that if it really exists is entirely marginalised from the actual debate) and an idealised version of starmer that doesn’t correspond with his expressed views.

        • dad@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those that prioritise preservation over progress have weaponised ecology to block development. They are sadly far from marginalised. For example a significant portion of NIMBYs abuse environmental law to block development from occurring near to them. You only have to look at the ban on on-shore wind for an example of this. People were worried about visual amenity, not ecology. That didn’t stop them using ecology as part of their argument to get them banned.

          • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. Your example about onshore wind (bird conservation as a convenient figleaf) shows precisely that NIMBYs are not environmentalists at all, hence not in “group1” by definition.

      • Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “evidence” is clearly that the Green Agenda isn’t at the top of Labour’s plans. I heard Starmer on LBC last week refusing to defend ULEZ and Sadiq Khan. I heard Starmer also telling young environmentalists in Gillingham when challenged about which side of the climate debate he was on, saying “the side of economic growth.” Two weeks ago, Starmer decided to u-turn on the Green Plan Labour had been developing.

        What more evidence do you need?

        If we do face an existential crisis then it means actually doing radical stuff. Postponing things until Rupert Murdoch or one of the other oligarchs tell us it’s ok, isn’t an option.

        • Tangentism@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I heard Starmer on LBC last week refusing to defend ULEZ and Sadiq Khan.

          Dont forget that Khan has green lit the Silvertown tunnel, which will have massive negative environmental impact on the east of London

          • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Kind of, but right now all that traffic is pushed though the Blackwell tunnel, Woolwich or Dartford so if anything it’s spreading it out a bit compared to now. That said, anyone using it will have to be ULEZ compliant now anyway.