122
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] neanderthal@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Serious question. Do the tories over there have a cult like thing going on like our MAGA types here?

ETA: I'm in the US.

[-] Jabbawacky@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

Not as such

We just have a lot of selfish, stupid old people.

[-] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 6 points 1 year ago

You just described most of the MAGA crowd.

[-] Jabbawacky@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, our lot are significantly more boring. Think Hot Fuzz, seriously. It's that type of "ooo-er not in our village!!!" NIMBY stuck in their way type of folk.

Boris was trying to do that. However getting caught partying while people weren't allowed out of their homes and funerals were restricted to about 4 people made a lot of people realise how much of cunt he was.

The two prime ministers since, very much no.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It's not really equivalent. The USA has a significantly higher level of religious indoctrination/followers than the rest of the developed world, so it was easy for conservatism to wrap itself around the cross and achieve the devoted, religious cult-like brainwashing of MAGA. That level of political sports team fandom doesn't win elections in other developed economies, where the buying and wearing of political merch is ridiculous to the vast majority of voters, and even the most diehard supporters really only wear it to political events or in the weeks immediately surrounding a vote.

With that said, the mental illness of conservatism is very strong in the UK – they've held a majority in federal government for well over a decade, have similar regressive economic policies, have spearheaded a relatively similar level of damage to quality of life and standard of living, and use very similar psychological warfare tactics (blaming all the nations problems on the weakest and most vulnerable of society, political opposition, etc)... They just walk a much finer line in what what they can publicly get away with.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

Boris Johnson did. The party got rid of him when the casual Tory enjoyers turned against him after he held drunked piss-ups during COVID lockdown when people couldn't even see their dying relatives in hospital.

Since then their ratings have gone from bad to worse. Johnson was a clown but popular because he'd been on telly and people saw him as a harmless buffoon.

The next election will be a massacre and I can't wait.

[-] RoboGroMo@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

there's a lot of culture war stuff, they generally don't vocally support the Tories but maga don't really support the gop only trump and anything that isn't 'woke' - this sort of move is i presume designed as a nod to those alex jones types that think climate change is just an excuse to install a one world government, exactly the people who voted us out of the EU because of some vague notion of sovereignty.

[-] andthenthreemore@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago

One bi-election where they won on a local issue by about 500 votes, and they think they'll get a polling boost by ditching climate policies.

Bold strategy, let's see how that plays out.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They would have lost ULIZ if Labour had bothered to actually correct the record. But they just decided to throw Sadiq Khan under a bus because they were scared of coming out in support of him. They were worried they'd lose the brainless shit head vote.

What everyone needs to do now is yell very loudly at the Tories for having no green policys, and then hopefully Labour will pick up on that and decide that this pussy footing around the problem approach isn't actually a good idea.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Polling is currently a Labour landslide, so they need bold policies to stay relevant and this is a topic Labour might actually use some points in.

It's a massive gamble. Polling over the past few years has been constantly calling for action on climate change. They're clearly hoping that there's been a shift on this.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

They have a year, Rupert Murdoch and fossil fuel money to create that change. Still a hard sell considering the situation.

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

must not be in line with his goals as a very, very wealthy man

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

"Abaaaht time I'm sick of hearing about this woke-vironment rubbish!"

That's what Rishi Sunak thinks of the electorate.

[-] FarraigePlaisteach@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

I think the electorate know what to expect every time they vote his party into power.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

You'd think so, but I saw some poverty article in which some guy was being interviewed.

He was disabled, his 12 year old daughter was collecting from the food bank every day so they could eat, they had no heating, and kept having to fight for his benefits to not be cut.

Who do you reckon he was voting for next time? They've got the best plan for the economy, don't you know? Plus Corbyn wore the wrong tie for the queen or something.

[-] FarraigePlaisteach@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

That’s a good point. I don’t know if I can blame them - there are powerful forces in the battles for hearts and minds. The Murdoch press is one example.

Disclaimer: I’m not from Britain though.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

However the thing about the battle for hearts and minds is it's much easier to win if the people you're trying to win over are not used to using them minds.

At some point being politically ignorant is not an excuse.

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
122 points (99.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5310 readers
336 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS