NPR

Glaston wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:49 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:08 pm

Actually I think he is absolutely bang on correct. Recycling is pretty woeful, we need to stop using plastics.

A bit more balance than this increasingly ridiculous thread

Recycling plastics does not work, says Boris Johnson https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59039155

Agreed, I couldn’t understand why he was pilloried for that statement. It’s blindingly obvious.

To recycle better, I am now supplied with 3 Plastic containers .
My weekly recycling used to always fit into 1 bin .
This week: bin a) = 1 tin can and a plastic milk container, bin b) =1bottle and a jam jar. bin c) = remains of a cardboard box and a loo roll centre.
Bin b has gone missing
Luckily I dont have one of the wheelie bins for rubbish .


Re rivers and sewage
Arent UK rivers the cleanest they have been for a century? The return of the odd salmon to the Thames and other stuff.
Not that I think the Water companies should be allowed to discharge into water courses/sea on a regular bsis

The debate comes amid growing concerns over the state of waterways in England and Wales, with just 16 per cent of England’s rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters meeting the minimum “good ecological status”, according to the EU water framework directive.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:06 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:08 pm

Actually I think he is absolutely bang on correct. Recycling is pretty woeful, we need to stop using plastics.

A bit more balance than this increasingly ridiculous thread

Recycling plastics does not work, says Boris Johnson https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59039155

Agreed, I couldn’t understand why he was pilloried for that statement. It’s blindingly obvious.

Because he should have told the kids to do both: use less plastic AND recycle what you are forced to use. D’uh.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:50 am

Glaston wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:49 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am

Agreed, I couldn’t understand why he was pilloried for that statement. It’s blindingly obvious.

To recycle better, I am now supplied with 3 Plastic containers .
My weekly recycling used to always fit into 1 bin .
This week: bin a) = 1 tin can and a plastic milk container, bin b) =1bottle and a jam jar. bin c) = remains of a cardboard box and a loo roll centre.
Bin b has gone missing
Luckily I dont have one of the wheelie bins for rubbish .


Re rivers and sewage
Arent UK rivers the cleanest they have been for a century? The return of the odd salmon to the Thames and other stuff.
Not that I think the Water companies should be allowed to discharge into water courses/sea on a regular bsis

The debate comes amid growing concerns over the state of waterways in England and Wales, with just 16 per cent of England’s rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters meeting the minimum “good ecological status”, according to the EU water framework directive.

https://www.ft.com/content/9bd19612-837 ... 1d71cedd0c

16% meet the "minimum !

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:51 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:06 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am

Agreed, I couldn’t understand why he was pilloried for that statement. It’s blindingly obvious.

Because he should have told the kids to do both: use less plastic AND recycle what you are forced to use. D’uh.

There was a programme on the other night about Coca Cola and the obscene amount of plastic they put into the world.

The headline figures were something like 160 billion single use bottles per year of which less than half are recovered. The bottles they are pumping out are made up of less than 11% recycled plastic. It's fucking obscene.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:51 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:06 am

Because he should have told the kids to do both: use less plastic AND recycle what you are forced to use. D’uh.

There was a programme on the other night about Coca Cola and the obscene amount of plastic they put into the world.

The headline figures were something like 160 billion single use bottles per year of which less than half are recovered. The bottles they are pumping out are made up of less than 11% recycled plastic. It's fucking obscene.

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:51 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:06 am

Because he should have told the kids to do both: use less plastic AND recycle what you are forced to use. D’uh.

There was a programme on the other night about Coca Cola and the obscene amount of plastic they put into the world.

The headline figures were something like 160 billion single use bottles per year of which less than half are recovered. The bottles they are pumping out are made up of less than 11% recycled plastic. It's fucking obscene.

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:51 am

There was a programme on the other night about Coca Cola and the obscene amount of plastic they put into the world.

The headline figures were something like 160 billion single use bottles per year of which less than half are recovered. The bottles they are pumping out are made up of less than 11% recycled plastic. It's fucking obscene.

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:24 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

I hope you’re being ironic, otherwise your attitude sux for a woke millennial.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:06 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:08 pm

Actually I think he is absolutely bang on correct. Recycling is pretty woeful, we need to stop using plastics.

A bit more balance than this increasingly ridiculous thread

Recycling plastics does not work, says Boris Johnson https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59039155

Agreed, I couldn’t understand why he was pilloried for that statement. It’s blindingly obvious.

Because he should have told the kids to do both: use less plastic AND recycle what you are forced to use. D’uh.

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:40 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:06 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am

Agreed, I couldn’t understand why he was pilloried for that statement. It’s blindingly obvious.

Because he should have told the kids to do both: use less plastic AND recycle what you are forced to use. D’uh.

Exactly, whether it's a problem of misreporting, or that as usual he's barely articulate enough to express what he really means it seems to have been taken by some as meaning "recycling is pointless".

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:36 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:24 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am
And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

I hope you’re being ironic, otherwise your attitude sux for a woke millennial.

As you may have noticed, I am something of a pessimist.
To be clear I would love to see us think radically about a number of environmental measures. I'd love to see things like London's ULEZ extended, road pricing, additional cycle lanes and an expanded rail network. The Government should absolutely invest in renewable energy and use leaving the CAP as an opportunity to bring more wildlife and diversity to the countryside. Large parts of the country are crying out to be reforested.
But I support this because I think it will make the country a more livable place rather than that it will save the world.
Pretending that not ordering steak or getting on a plane is going to do anything is just fantasy.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:51 am

There was a programme on the other night about Coca Cola and the obscene amount of plastic they put into the world.

The headline figures were something like 160 billion single use bottles per year of which less than half are recovered. The bottles they are pumping out are made up of less than 11% recycled plastic. It's fucking obscene.

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:51 am

There was a programme on the other night about Coca Cola and the obscene amount of plastic they put into the world.

The headline figures were something like 160 billion single use bottles per year of which less than half are recovered. The bottles they are pumping out are made up of less than 11% recycled plastic. It's fucking obscene.

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

I hear this thrown around a lot. It's not entirely correct - it is for the US, but not the others. Reason being their emissions are going up and up because they're developing - but consider why and what their target is. Fundamentally, people aspire. They aspire to a better life for themselves, their family, their children. The better life they aspire to is the western or developed world lifestyle, which rightly or wrongly is seens as the most advanced lifestyle on the planet. If we demonstrate that to be an outdated, less modern lifestyle, then the aspirations will change alongside it - nobody aspires to be less advanced than their neighbours. So if our society continues to set the lifestyle that the developing world wants to live, we need to move our own lifestyle on to represent a more sustainable model. And we need to find the ways to do that so that it looks like a conitued advancement, rather than a step back.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:00 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am
And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

I hear this thrown around a lot. It's not entirely correct - it is for the US, but not the others. Reason being their emissions are going up and up because they're developing - but consider why and what their target is. Fundamentally, people aspire. They aspire to a better life for themselves, their family, their children. The better life they aspire to is the western or developed world lifestyle, which rightly or wrongly is seens as the most advanced lifestyle on the planet. If we demonstrate that to be an outdated, less modern lifestyle, then the aspirations will change alongside it - nobody aspires to be less advanced than their neighbours. So if our society continues to set the lifestyle that the developing world wants to live, we need to move our own lifestyle on to represent a more sustainable model. And we need to find the ways to do that so that it looks like a conitued advancement, rather than a step back.

There's something in this, but the West as a model for China theory is I think outdated.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

I hear this thrown around a lot. It's not entirely correct - it is for the US, but not the others. Reason being their emissions are going up and up because they're developing - but consider why and what their target is. Fundamentally, people aspire. They aspire to a better life for themselves, their family, their children. The better life they aspire to is the western or developed world lifestyle, which rightly or wrongly is seens as the most advanced lifestyle on the planet. If we demonstrate that to be an outdated, less modern lifestyle, then the aspirations will change alongside it - nobody aspires to be less advanced than their neighbours. So if our society continues to set the lifestyle that the developing world wants to live, we need to move our own lifestyle on to represent a more sustainable model. And we need to find the ways to do that so that it looks like a conitued advancement, rather than a step back.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:08 am Aspiration is a funny one. If you are unemployed for three or four years, (having to apply for litterally any old shit) your belief in yourself completely crumbles and you think you deserve what you get.
That the shitty job you have is too good for you.

You can aspire for like a year, then when the world tells you to fuck off (which it will) , you take your licks and un'aspire.

Optimism, aspiration etc is a Tory trick to blame you for your current situation.
You didn't aspire enough, you were not aspirational or optimistic enough...in your dead end town with 50% unemployment and a depression epidemic.


In America, like the UK if you are born poor, you die poor.
Hope, optimism, aspiration.. is the thing stopping you joining the democratic socialist party, and taxing the finger jabbing, aspirational cunts, until they have to fuck off and flee the county, and they know it.

You are far better off trying to get as much fun and happiness out of today, so get naked, drunk,chase a nurse around your flat, whilst playing the electric guitar with a virtual reality head set on.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:06 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:00 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:55 am

I hear this thrown around a lot. It's not entirely correct - it is for the US, but not the others. Reason being their emissions are going up and up because they're developing - but consider why and what their target is. Fundamentally, people aspire. They aspire to a better life for themselves, their family, their children. The better life they aspire to is the western or developed world lifestyle, which rightly or wrongly is seens as the most advanced lifestyle on the planet. If we demonstrate that to be an outdated, less modern lifestyle, then the aspirations will change alongside it - nobody aspires to be less advanced than their neighbours. So if our society continues to set the lifestyle that the developing world wants to live, we need to move our own lifestyle on to represent a more sustainable model. And we need to find the ways to do that so that it looks like a conitued advancement, rather than a step back.

There's something in this, but the West as a model for China theory is I think outdated.

On a macro level as a 'where does China want its society, economy etc to go, how does it want to function as a country, yes. But on the level of the individual I think it's still the same.

Consumerism, entrepreneurs, overseas holidays, university education? So far as middle class aspirations go I think there's a huge amount of similarity.
Better housing, higher pay, television, internet, televisions? So far as the bottom end of society goes, again Ithink it's similar.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:20 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:12 am

This is why he was pilloried for it because we've been told cutting our individual consumption is the key to fighting climate change.

It isn't. We need to radically change the economy if we are to become net zero. Which I am not suggesting is the way to go. But you can't have a fossil fuel based economy and be net zero. We're doomed no matter who puts their coca cola bottle in the recycling bin.

And also of course anything we do is irrelevant and this issue will be decided in the US, China, India and Brazil.

I hear this thrown around a lot. It's not entirely correct - it is for the US, but not the others. Reason being their emissions are going up and up because they're developing - but consider why and what their target is. Fundamentally, people aspire. They aspire to a better life for themselves, their family, their children. The better life they aspire to is the western or developed world lifestyle, which rightly or wrongly is seens as the most advanced lifestyle on the planet. If we demonstrate that to be an outdated, less modern lifestyle, then the aspirations will change alongside it - nobody aspires to be less advanced than their neighbours. So if our society continues to set the lifestyle that the developing world wants to live, we need to move our own lifestyle on to represent a more sustainable model. And we need to find the ways to do that so that it looks like a conitued advancement, rather than a step back.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:55 am Burger speech underway. This guy is a really poor public speaker.

Also, there’s been a few ‘back to 2010 spending levels’, ‘highest level in a decade’. So returning to the last Labour government’s level of spending is now a good thing it seems.

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:59 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:55 am Burger speech underway. This guy is a really poor public speaker.

Also, there’s been a few ‘back to 2010 spending levels’, ‘highest level in a decade’. So returning to the last Labour government’s level of spending is now a good thing it seems.

He is a bit more coherent than the Blonde Bumblecunt but then again so was Norman Collier!

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:02 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:59 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:55 am Burger speech underway. This guy is a really poor public speaker.

Also, there’s been a few ‘back to 2010 spending levels’, ‘highest level in a decade’. So returning to the last Labour government’s level of spending is now a good thing it seems.

He is a bit more coherent than the Blonde Bumblecunt but then again so was Norman Collier!

Going big on spending in Scotland, Wales and NI ... focus groups must be telling them they are taking big hits in devolved countries?

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:59 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:55 am Burger speech underway. This guy is a really poor public speaker.

Also, there’s been a few ‘back to 2010 spending levels’, ‘highest level in a decade’. So returning to the last Labour government’s level of spending is now a good thing it seems.

He is a bit more coherent than the Blonde Bumblecunt but then again so was Norman Collier!

dpedin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:59 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:55 am Burger speech underway. This guy is a really poor public speaker.

Also, there’s been a few ‘back to 2010 spending levels’, ‘highest level in a decade’. So returning to the last Labour government’s level of spending is now a good thing it seems.

He is a bit more coherent than the Blonde Bumblecunt but then again so was Norman Collier!

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:18 pm Front bench wearing masks - that’s a bit worrying. Or reassuring?

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:21 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:18 pm Front bench wearing masks - that’s a bit worrying. Or reassuring?

So they should be. Everyone else in Westminster Palace has to.
Bet Rees-Mogg and his ultra pals aren't though!

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:55 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:21 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:18 pm Front bench wearing masks - that’s a bit worrying. Or reassuring?

So they should be. Everyone else in Westminster Palace has to.
Bet Rees-Mogg and his ultra pals aren't though!

weren't they given a ticking off over night and told to start wearing them?

Paul Dacre will “imminently” be offered another chance to become chair of the media regulator, Ofcom, ministers have confirmed.
Ministers have been attempting to appoint the former Daily Mail editor to run the watchdog since last summer. They had thought in May that this had been achieved, only for Dacre unexpectedly to flunk his final interview, with the interview panel saying he was “not appointable”.
Individuals with knowledge of the recruitment process say this was despite Dacre being offered guidance on what to say in the interview and how to meet the job description criteria.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:17 pm Not sure how cutting tax on domestic air travel will line up with leading COP26.