The Labour leader’s outburst followed a presentation from climate and net zero spokesman Ed Miliband
  • dad
    21·
    1 year ago

    “Tree Huggers” to me is a short hand for Group 1 but that is subjective and either of us could be right.

    I think it is a big claim to say Starmer doesn’t believe in the climate catastrophe, we should probably have a bit more evidence before making such a claim.

    • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know why you’d think that given that the language is used specifically in rejection of miliband’s green agenda which includes extensive investment in green energy.

      You seem to have both set up a weird “group 1” strawman (that if it really exists is entirely marginalised from the actual debate) and an idealised version of starmer that doesn’t correspond with his expressed views.

      • dad
        1·
        1 year ago

        Those that prioritise preservation over progress have weaponised ecology to block development. They are sadly far from marginalised. For example a significant portion of NIMBYs abuse environmental law to block development from occurring near to them. You only have to look at the ban on on-shore wind for an example of this. People were worried about visual amenity, not ecology. That didn’t stop them using ecology as part of their argument to get them banned.

        • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. Your example about onshore wind (bird conservation as a convenient figleaf) shows precisely that NIMBYs are not environmentalists at all, hence not in “group1” by definition.

    • Tenebris Nox
      4·
      1 year ago

      The “evidence” is clearly that the Green Agenda isn’t at the top of Labour’s plans. I heard Starmer on LBC last week refusing to defend ULEZ and Sadiq Khan. I heard Starmer also telling young environmentalists in Gillingham when challenged about which side of the climate debate he was on, saying “the side of economic growth.” Two weeks ago, Starmer decided to u-turn on the Green Plan Labour had been developing.

      What more evidence do you need?

      If we do face an existential crisis then it means actually doing radical stuff. Postponing things until Rupert Murdoch or one of the other oligarchs tell us it’s ok, isn’t an option.

      • Tangentism@lemmy.ml
        1·
        1 year ago

        I heard Starmer on LBC last week refusing to defend ULEZ and Sadiq Khan.

        Dont forget that Khan has green lit the Silvertown tunnel, which will have massive negative environmental impact on the east of London