I am a fan of (Dame) Emma Thompson, really I am. But she has now dropped several thousand metres in my estimation by flying from the USA to London to be in the ongoing demonstrations about climate change. As far as I can tell, that’s the only reason. Not because she happened to be needed in London for filming or something and thought, what the hell, I’ll join the demo while I am there. If I’m wrong, somebody please tell me. She says she plants lots of trees. Goodie! That’s alright then.
So, a carbon footprint like a yeti, to demo against … carbon footprints. I imagine that the organisers are frantically delighted by having such a celeb to parade before the cameras, and that’s fine, but if such people are going to help front demo’s against climate change, they should be made to walk there, or cycle.
The demonstrators are not winning too many friends. It is mantra of mine that any group, wanting to demonstrate or protest, should never be allowed to do so at the expense of others whose lives they turn upside down. That includes members of trade unions who work on railways, buses, hospitals, etc., etc. If deliberately putting the lives of others to massive inconvenience is actually the purpose of their exercise, then that’s just plain wrong and selfish and should be illegal. Especially, as is the case with the climateers, they can and do make their point in many more effective ways. Do they really think that creating chaos in London’s streets is going to have any impact upon government, which already knows the score and is trying to do something about it? Maybe doing it too slowly, but perhaps all the climateers would be happier if the government decreed that all electrical power should be turned off every second day for 24 hours? That’d save a million tons of carbon. And a lot of fuel, too. And the climateers could be seriously inconvenienced along with everyone else. The could not use their mobile phones at will, for a start, and that would make arranging demos much harder
Whatever you do, please don’t lump me with trump if I suggest that the climate change debate needs a bit more balance. He calls it a hoax, but then, as we know, he’s an asshole. And if I dare to suggest any form of possible questioning of Sir David Att, that’s the equivalent of farting loudly and evilly in church. So, my only mild disagreement with him has to do with his suggestion that our societies will crumble and disappear and that this is a reason – not the reason, but one of them – for stopping CO2 emissions and all the rest. Frankly, the human species and the co-called societies he describes, have got it coming. Asking for it. If the population of Planet Earth were to fall by several billion by 2100 and plateau at that point, so be it. Some of my descendants will perish along with many others, and I don’t much like the thought – but so be that, too. If a drastic fall in population worldwide is roughly in proportion to where centres of population are currently to be found, better still. No single continent should have to take a disproportionate share of the shake-out.
His recent programme makes me wonder where he’s looking and who is responsible for the biggest contribution to CO2. Europe? America? He seems to be saying that they are – when the really big stuff could be coming from the Far East and Africa. Who is burning most fossil fuel? Would a world map with shaded areas showing CO2-heavy areas help us to see this?
And if it turned out to be China and India, or anywhere in Africa, do we suppose that their governments will pay anything more than lip service to it all? Of course, if it turns out that the Far East is the real problem, does that absolve the West from taking action to stop rises in temperatures all over the globe? No – but it makes me feel uncomfortable to think that we, in the West, are taking all the flak. Lead the way, yes, but take all the blame? No.