Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Shoot The Messenger?
Is this a chance for those want to ignore climate change to switch the narrative?
https:/
Rather than focusing on the environment, and what we’re doing to it, we can fire shots at Emma Thomson.
It reminds me of certain people who complained of the 5p charge for supermarket shopping bags, claiming it was a ‘stealth tax’ - meanwhile in in the oceans...
https:/
Rather than focusing on the environment, and what we’re doing to it, we can fire shots at Emma Thomson.
It reminds me of certain people who complained of the 5p charge for supermarket shopping bags, claiming it was a ‘stealth tax’ - meanwhile in in the oceans...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It was a (unhidden ?) stealth tax. If the concern was the pollution they'd have banned plastic bags, but they didn't, they demanded money for them.
As for Emma, whether the criticism is warranted or not, if one lectures not to do something and then does it oneself, one can expect to be called on it.
Doesn't mean we're not taking the underlying issue seriously; well those of us not virtue signalling and causing problems for society by causing a nuisance and obstructing for days while the police allow it, anyway.
As for Emma, whether the criticism is warranted or not, if one lectures not to do something and then does it oneself, one can expect to be called on it.
Doesn't mean we're not taking the underlying issue seriously; well those of us not virtue signalling and causing problems for society by causing a nuisance and obstructing for days while the police allow it, anyway.
DD
It may be legitimate to have a pop at Ms Thomson, but doesn’t that legitimise the avoidance of what she has to say.
It’s easy to shout ‘hypocrite’ to make ourselves feel better about doing nothing ourselves and contributing to climate change.
When people say that climate change is a natural phenomenon, are they including the destruction of rain forests so that we can increase the production of palm oil?
It may be legitimate to have a pop at Ms Thomson, but doesn’t that legitimise the avoidance of what she has to say.
It’s easy to shout ‘hypocrite’ to make ourselves feel better about doing nothing ourselves and contributing to climate change.
When people say that climate change is a natural phenomenon, are they including the destruction of rain forests so that we can increase the production of palm oil?
"Taxes have to be paid. You don’t have to buy carrier bags. You can use your own bags."
So VAT isn't a tax if it's on something I can make for myself ? That's not so.
"virtue signalling to want to do something about what we are actively doing to the environment?"
Wanting to do something is fine. Doing something that doesn't help (and especially when inconveniencing the rest of society for days) certainly is virtue signalling. It's saying, "Look at me, I'm showing that I'm for doing something, but not actually achieving anything but causing disruption for self publicity".
Emma brought the criticism on herself. Even discussing the fact is just a side distraction.
So VAT isn't a tax if it's on something I can make for myself ? That's not so.
"virtue signalling to want to do something about what we are actively doing to the environment?"
Wanting to do something is fine. Doing something that doesn't help (and especially when inconveniencing the rest of society for days) certainly is virtue signalling. It's saying, "Look at me, I'm showing that I'm for doing something, but not actually achieving anything but causing disruption for self publicity".
Emma brought the criticism on herself. Even discussing the fact is just a side distraction.
//I think the term ‘virtue signalling’ should be excluded from the discourse - it suggests that those who are environmentally aware are only like this to prove a point, rather than to effect a change.//
I disagree that the term should be excluded from discourse. Emma Thompson is also vocal in the #MeToo organisation - in areas where it suits her.
I disagree that the term should be excluded from discourse. Emma Thompson is also vocal in the #MeToo organisation - in areas where it suits her.
-Talbot-
You asked:
//Are you saying that no eco warriors are calling Thompson a hypocrite?//
I wouldn’t use the term ‘eco warrior’.
It’s pejorative and used to characterise those who have concerns about the environment as zealots.
I’m sure that there are those who have no interest in sustainability that are calling Thomson a hypocrite, but that’s a diversion.
You asked:
//Are you saying that no eco warriors are calling Thompson a hypocrite?//
I wouldn’t use the term ‘eco warrior’.
It’s pejorative and used to characterise those who have concerns about the environment as zealots.
I’m sure that there are those who have no interest in sustainability that are calling Thomson a hypocrite, but that’s a diversion.
AOG
In a way we are. We don’t physically go and chop down rain forest trees, but when we buy products made by Unilever, Nestlé, Colgate-Palmolive we contribute. It’s the palm oil that’s the problem.
Less rain forest means less oxygen released into the atmosphere, which in turn screws with the climate.
Thank you naomi24 for that point. It was interesting. I don’t agree, but I think it was worth stating.
In a way we are. We don’t physically go and chop down rain forest trees, but when we buy products made by Unilever, Nestlé, Colgate-Palmolive we contribute. It’s the palm oil that’s the problem.
Less rain forest means less oxygen released into the atmosphere, which in turn screws with the climate.
Thank you naomi24 for that point. It was interesting. I don’t agree, but I think it was worth stating.
“Despite this, the Mail takes the problem of climate change seriously”.
As they didn’t go on to say.
This article nicely illustrates why some people think the threat to the planet is cooked up by the mysterious “them”. But doesn’t excuse it.
Despite the fact that we’d all be on that plane guzzling whatever takes our fancy and complacent in the knowledge that we’d never tell others not to :-)
As they didn’t go on to say.
This article nicely illustrates why some people think the threat to the planet is cooked up by the mysterious “them”. But doesn’t excuse it.
Despite the fact that we’d all be on that plane guzzling whatever takes our fancy and complacent in the knowledge that we’d never tell others not to :-)
AOG
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s difficult to even begin thinking of numbers without it becoming an abstraction.
It’s like the question of smoking - how many lives will be saved if everyone quit smoking?
That’s not the question that anyone should ask because it’s so difficult to quantify, but it’s a goal we should be aiming towards.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s difficult to even begin thinking of numbers without it becoming an abstraction.
It’s like the question of smoking - how many lives will be saved if everyone quit smoking?
That’s not the question that anyone should ask because it’s so difficult to quantify, but it’s a goal we should be aiming towards.
The problems we face won’t be solved by people randomly ceasing to eat beef, fly in planes, burn coal and gas and oil etc.
If people like Emma T really ARE suggesting that then are are being silly.
Only governments, and scientists, can take this on, and the problem is that it may prove politically difficult unless the measures needed are quantifiable and seen to be achievable. There are some signs we may be getting there.
If people like Emma T really ARE suggesting that then are are being silly.
Only governments, and scientists, can take this on, and the problem is that it may prove politically difficult unless the measures needed are quantifiable and seen to be achievable. There are some signs we may be getting there.
//The problems we face won’t be solved by people randomly ceasing //
no. and nor will it be solved by scientists and politicos unless they can create solutions using a joined-up approach. Drax Power Station is switching to the burning of biomass (shredded trees, if you like) and cutting down the amount of coal burned. on the face of it sounds like a good idea? well, until you realise that the wood comes from Western Canada, has to have thousands of carbon miles burned to get it here and requires the deforestation of an area the size of Wales that will take centuries to grow back to its former carbon converting status. more thought needed chaps.
no. and nor will it be solved by scientists and politicos unless they can create solutions using a joined-up approach. Drax Power Station is switching to the burning of biomass (shredded trees, if you like) and cutting down the amount of coal burned. on the face of it sounds like a good idea? well, until you realise that the wood comes from Western Canada, has to have thousands of carbon miles burned to get it here and requires the deforestation of an area the size of Wales that will take centuries to grow back to its former carbon converting status. more thought needed chaps.
