The Politics of 'Climate-change'

[CPFCSaturn]

How? Why is it okay for the BBC and sky news to fly helicopters to watch a train and cabs yet I would get fined driving into London? 🤣

It's the hypocrisy of it all.

Because it's comparing apples and oranges - a news helicopter covering a one off event is not equivalent nor comparable to millions of individuals making daily/regular journeys in their car.

Climate policy is about reducing the biggest sources of emissions across society, not pretending every single activity must have identical rules nor that nothing which causes emissions can ever take place.

 

[eaglesdare]

Because it's comparing apples and oranges - a news helicopter covering a one off event is not equivalent nor comparable to millions of individuals making daily/regular journeys in their car.

Climate policy is about reducing the biggest sources of emissions across society, not pretending every single activity must have identical rules nor that nothing which causes emissions can ever take place.

How many times has this "one off event" occured in the last 10-15 years? 🤣

 

[eaglesdare]

I'm sure using drones would be at least more climate friendly than flying helicopters around to look at a train or a cab? 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[eaglesdare]

The Fourth Estate is considered a vital part of our democracy. I have no issue with their use of wasteful transport.

Presumably, we are also agreed on military and emergency services use?

It is the super rich who no doubt create lucrative marketing "green" credentials for their businesses but whose lifestyles are anything but.

Emergency services are obviously fine. But BBC and Sky joyriding in helicopters to follow a train and some cabs is the epitome of hypocrisy when they constantly lecture everyone else about climate change.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

How many times has this "one off event" occured in the last 10-15 years? 🤣

Do you want to compare that with how many people have driven into London in the last 10-15 years..?

 

[eaglesdare]

Do you want to compare that with how many people have driven into London in the last 10-15 years..?

So you want to compare flying in a helicopter to follow a train and taxis to everyday people having to make ends meet? 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

[CPFCSaturn]

So you want to compare flying in a helicopter to follow a train and taxis to everyday people having to make ends meet? 🤦🏻‍♂️

The vast, vast majority of people driving to London are not doing so out of necessity to make ends meet - that's nonsense framing.

🤣

🥷

☕

 

[silvertop]

Emergency services are obviously fine. But BBC and Sky joyriding in helicopters to follow a train and some cabs is the epitome of hypocrisy when they constantly lecture everyone else about climate change.

Perhaps we can agree on a drone?

 

[eaglesdare]

The vast, vast majority of people driving to London are not doing so out of necessity to make ends meet - that's nonsense framing.

🤣

🥷

☕

Well....many do such as workers, tradesmen, parents doing school runs, carers and people in jobs with no viable public transport.

Not to mention the train fares are extortionately high and many services are unreliable. 🤷🏻‍♂️

The hypocrisy i am highlighting is that media elites flying helicopters to film taxis and trains while demanding the rest of us sacrifice.

 

[eaglesdare]

Perhaps we can agree on a drone?

Yes! 🤝

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Well....many do such as workers, tradesmen, parents doing school runs, carers and people in jobs with no viable public transport.

Not to mention the train fares are extortionately high and many services are unreliable. 🤷🏻‍♂️

The hypocrisy i am highlighting is that media elites flying helicopters to film taxis and trains while demanding the rest of us sacrifice.

Great, the vast majority don't, so your framing was bullshit. 'No viable public transport' in London lol.

No one is DEMANDING you SACRIFICE.

 

[eaglesdare]

Great, the vast majority don't, so your framing was bullshit. 'No viable public transport' in London lol.

No one is DEMANDING you SACRIFICE.

The vast majority don't? Like who? I have already provided you plenty of examples of those that have to drive into London where transport may not be an option due to viability and/ or prices.

Yes they are. BBC and sky news is full of propaganda shaming us to be more climate friendly 🤷🏻‍♂️.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The vast majority don't? Like who? I have already provided you plenty of examples of those that have to drive into London where transport may not be an option due to viability and/ or prices.

Yes they are. BBC and sky news is full of propaganda shaming us to be more climate friendly 🤷🏻‍♂️.

Most working people in London commute.. Very few people do school runs to Central London.

Transport is an option everywhere in London, and even with trains costing more, it's still considerably cheaper than driving.

There are very few people have a NEED to drive in London.

SHAMING. DEMANDING. SACRIFICE.

Very dramatic.

 

[eaglesdare]

Most working people in London commute.. Very few people do school runs to Central London.

Transport is an option everywhere in London, and even with trains costing more, it's still considerably cheaper than driving.

There are very few people have a NEED to drive in London.

SHAMING. DEMANDING. SACRIFICE.

Very dramatic.

So why does the BBC and sky news feel the need to use jet fuel to follow a train and taxis when there are all these alternatives?

 

[ASCPFC]

Most working people in London commute.. Very few people do school runs to Central London.

Transport is an option everywhere in London, and even with trains costing more, it's still considerably cheaper than driving.

There are very few people have a NEED to drive in London.

SHAMING. DEMANDING. SACRIFICE.

Very dramatic.

I would agree with London. But business obviously requires it. However, the rest of the country is not so blessed.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

So why does the BBC and sky news feel the need to use jet fuel to follow a train and taxis when there are all these alternatives?

I'm not here to argue that particular piece of news reporting is some essential bit of work, but comparing individual journeys with media coverage is just inherently nonsensical.

Sure, the BBC could have done without using that helicopter for that particular story - no argument from me.

Does that mean I have to therefore reject or disagree with any policy we come up with to address emissions? No, obviously that would be ridiculous.

 

[eaglesdare]

I'm not here to argue that particular piece of news reporting is some essential bit of work, but comparing individual journeys with media coverage is just inherently nonsensical.

Sure, the BBC could have done without using that helicopter for that particular story - no argument from me.

Does that mean I have to therefore reject or disagree with any policy we come up with to address emissions? No, obviously that would be ridiculous.

My point essentially was why does the BBC (government funded) and the sky news feel the need to use helicopters with jet fuel to follow a train or taxi. While at the same time lecturing us all on climate change (which is real). Especially as you have outlined how good transport system is (in London). Why not fly a drone? Why not have cameras and reporters on the train? That indeed would be more climate friendly?

I think it is a good point and is in line with the name of this thread. "Politics of climate change". Why is it okay for the elites to do as they please but lecture the rest of us on climate change? That goes for all those celebs too with their private jets.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I would agree with London. But business obviously requires it. However, the rest of the country is not so blessed.

Sure, but many of these policies are London-specific for that reason.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

My point essentially was why does the BBC (government funded) and the sky news feel the need to use helicopters with jet fuel to follow a train or taxi. While at the same time lecturing us all on climate change (which is real). Especially as you have outlined how good transport system is (in London). Why not fly a drone? Why not have cameras and reporters on the train? That indeed would be more climate friendly?

I think it is a good point and is in line with the name of this thread. "Politics of climate change". Why is it okay for the elites to do as they please but lecture the rest of us on climate change? That goes for all those celebs too with their private jets.

No issue if you want to criticise the BBC or Sky News for that decision, but just highlighting examples of avoidable emissions obviously doesn't at all invalidate the case for reducing emissions more generally.

If your doctor told you that you would be healthier if you stopped smoking, but he was a smoker himself, does that make his advice wrong?

I think the private jet argument is a far stronger one.

 

[eaglesdare]

No issue if you want to criticise the BBC or Sky News for that decision, but just highlighting examples of avoidable emissions obviously doesn't at all invalidate the case for reducing emissions more generally.

If your doctor told you that you would be healthier if you stopped smoking, but he was a smoker himself, does that make his advice wrong?

I think the private jet argument is a far stronger one.

What's the problem then? 🤣

I'm all for reducing emissions etc...i do my small bit. My problem is elites and broadcasters lecturing us and then being hypocritical about it. I was just pointing it out.