Montane Spine 2023

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

They won't use the cheapest fuel available if we pay them enough not to. Whether $100 billion a year is enough is another matter.

---

I appreciate the theory Mike, and you might be correct that if people in economically developing countries were paid enough money (yes, way more than $100 billion) it might work to dissuade them from using fossil fuels, but one of many questions you'd have to ask is, in reality, 'who' would really be paying the bill?

Likely it would be in the form of additional taxes, just like green-levies and green taxes now, imposed on the fuel bills of ordinary tax payers in the UK and elsewhere - disproportionately poorer people. Again, these taxes are hugely regressive. Even if there was a magic solution to conjure up the mega-billions of dollars needed, that money would inevitably also have been diverted from public services in developed countries where it would otherwise have been spent. That's not a problem if you're middle-class and relatively wealthy of course, as you rely less on public services.

Let's not also forget that "just stopping oil" impacts on nitrogen and fertilizer production, and our ability to feed people. These not so clever 'green' government policies have already contributed to social unrest in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, for example. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/we...lizer-help-sri Letting billions of people starve isn't a good green look.

Slowly reducing dependency on fossil fuels, while simultaneously and genuinely investing in alternative technologies (to include nuclear) seems to be the only compassionate, sane, and ethical way ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

I don't think that's a fair comment Noel, and I certainly don't agree that he's trying to make a positive impact - quite the reverse.

---

Do we agree he's trying to make a positive impact? I think he is trying to.

I agree it's right to challenge and dissect someone's message (that's the good thing about the forum). but I think it's a flawed argument to say that someone is a hypocrit because they're not living in a carbon neutral way when their message is that we should be working towards a more carbon neutral society.

It would be far easier for him to win the race and say "I'd like to thank my sponsors, everyone look at my shoes and lightweight pack". I don't think he's doing this for personal gain. I think he's doing it because he cares a lot about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Do we agree he's trying to make a positive impact? I think he is trying to.

I agree it's right to challenge and dissect someone's message (that's the good thing about the forum). but I think it's a flawed argument to say that someone is a hypocrit because they're not living in a carbon neutral way when their message is that we should be working towards a more carbon neutral society.

It would be far easier for him to win the race and say "I'd like to thank my sponsors, everyone look at my shoes and lightweight pack". I don't think he's doing this for personal gain. I think he's doing it because he cares a lot about it.

---

Morning Noel. Thanks for your reply.

I wish I could agree with you, and I do to a point, but for a different reason. Yes, I think he is trying, but the 'trying' is to convince us that he is a virtuous person (on the point of 'Just Stop Oil'/climate change issue - I'm sure he's likely a good person in the more general sense).

I believe what we are witnessing by his protest/slogan waving, is another example of double-standards and (I'm loathe to use this term again but it does apply) virtue signalling. From the Cambridge Dictionary "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media. Virtue signalling is the popular modern habit of indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings."

I'm with Aristotle on this, when he argued that a virtuous person must actually practice acts of virtue and do the arduous work of becoming virtuous. Damian Hall's lifestyle and his espoused 'just stop oil' messages are at considerable variance to each other. This kind of easy slogan/words is ultimately counter-productive because it obscures the hard work and genuine pain that everyone would have to endure to fulfil his espoused goal to 'Just Stop Oil".

Sadly, I don't think he's being positive either, when the glaring hypocrisy between his moral grandstanding and oil dependent life-style are contrasted, I think that discrepancy risks causing a lack of trust in environmental movements. It also risks fostering an underlying cynicism that renders proper debate and initiatives in the area of climate change/environmental pollution, etc., very difficult to conduct.

A good response, thanks Mossdog. I see your arguments more clearly now.

For me, the key to this interesting debate is about hypocrisy. It clearly is hypocritical to fly round the world but say we should be using less fossil fuels. But that argument only goes so far, and doesn't reflect people's position in modern culture as "influencers".

Since sportspeople tend to need to travel to compete, I think it's harsh to reject their stance as hypocritical. There are clearly some examples of people who use fossil fuels but are making a positive impact to the global understanding of the impact of global warming.

Having said all that, it sounds like you're more offended by the scale of the disparity in words vs deeds. Which I can understand.

As to whether this all means he's virtue signalling, I couldn't comment. I've never met him and haven't read his book. You might be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Since sportspeople tend to need to travel to compete, I think it's harsh to reject their stance as hypocritical.

---

Well everything is relative - I am now looking forward to seeing Lewis Hamilton emerge from his private jet prior to the opening Formula 1 race in Australia unfurling a Just Stop Oil banner.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Well everything is relative - I am now looking forward to seeing Lewis Hamilton emerge from his private jet prior to the opening Formula 1 race in Australia unfurling a Just Stop Oil banner.;)

---

Lol. Indeed.

That's the strange situation I've been mulling over while considering this issue. You can look at it from a total carbon footprint point of view. In which case, Lewis Hamilton is in the worse position to make a stance.

Or you can look at it from a point of view of how much someone can make a change in society. In which Lewis Hamilton is in a great position. And much better than some neo-hippy who's been living a completely carbon virtual life for the past 20 years, and we've therefore never heard of.

And while Lewis Hamilton probably couldn't credibly pull of a message like "just stop oil", he could probably get away with "we all need to reduce our carbon footprint, and F1 is no exception".

This is all reminding me of how East Midlands Airport installed some wind turbines so that they could generate zero-carbon electricity for the site. But they still continue to encourage people to fly, one of the most polluting forms of travel. Excuse me while I get into one of the planes to find a sick-bag.

I have been looking through "There is no Planet B" to try to find Mike Berners-Lee's take on fossil fuels in particular. He is adamant that fossil fuels must be left in the ground, though he does not clarify how this will be done, apart from by "an enforceable global deal".

Virtue signalling - is it not about stating a position, but doing nothing, or the minimum, in that direction? Damian is doing more than many, if not more than most.

I do "enjoy" your thoughts Mossdog. Keep them coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

I do "enjoy" your thoughts Mossdog. Keep them coming.

---

Endorsed. When I saw the reference to Aristotle I immediately sat up straight in my chair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

This is all reminding me of how East Midlands Airport installed some wind turbines so that they could generate zero-carbon electricity for the site. But they still continue to encourage people to fly, one of the most polluting forms of travel. Excuse me while I get into one of the planes to find a sick-bag.

---

It's worse than that, in that it doesn't have a railway station. That's right, a major UK airport that doesn't have a railway station.

The nearest railway station, (which I understand is not on an electrified line) is East Midlands Parkway - 5 miles away and the other side of the M1 motorway (so you're not going to run or walk the distance). Furthermore, no buses operate between the two, so the airport recommends using a taxi.

I appreciate we are some considerable distance 'off-thread', but a well-used passenger airport should not be this unconnected in the 21st century and screams out "just use more oil"

https://www.eastmidlandsairport.com/...from/by-train/