Their What? Are You Sure?

Doctors should use their status as a 'trusted member of the community' to warn patients about the dangers of climate change, health leaders say.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, wait, you're serious?

The Royal College of Physicians today issued new guidance that tells doctors to raise the topic during consultations and 'repeat it often'.

That's if you can actually get a consultation....

It calls on doctors to reduce carbon footprints by considering working from home - reducing their already-limited time with patients - and cutting back on prescriptions and tests.

They are also told to look out for people suffering 'eco-distress' - the name given to anxiety and depression caused by climate change.

One commenter, on a forum designed for GPs to share their views, described it as 'virtue signalling' with 'zero danger of any blame for the stuff that might be missed'. Another described the advice as 'no use to anyone and down right dangerous' warning it could possibly end the career of a doctor if they did not carry out a vital test or issue a prescription.

The document bills climate change as 'one of the biggest threats to human health' and stresses it will 'undoubtedly cause significant additional pressure for the NHS'. It warns that those working in the health service will be some of the first to see the health effects of climate change - 'if they have not done so already' - and calls on them to take action to reduce its impact.

Professor Ramesh Arasaradnam, academic vice president at the RCP, said: 'The need to act has never been more urgent and we hope that our Green Physician Toolkit will support the physician community with small steps that can make a difference.

'It can of course be challenging to prioritise sustainability at a time when there is very high demand for clinical care, but we have to keep in mind that reducing climate change and its health impacts is part of reduced pressure on the NHS in the long-term.'

Forget Sovereignty, Remember Gaia!

Once upon a time Britain would have sent a gunboat up the Yangtze River. That would teach those Chinese a lesson. To hear some MPs talk about Beijing’s espionage activities, you would think gunboats were already on their way.

Except we don't have any that work anymore. And even if we did, we'd not have anyonr with the balls to use them.  

Rishi Sunak was quick to the fray. “We’ve been very clear that the situation now is that China is behaving in an increasingly assertive way abroad, authoritarian at home, and it represents an epoch-defining challenge, and also the greatest state-based threat to our economic security,” he said. “So, it’s right that we take measures to protect ourselves, which is what we are doing.” That was clear. It was also ridiculous.

Oh? Is the threat not real? What other reason could you have for being so sanguine about a foreign power's attempt to subvert our country's sovreignty? 

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, who is said to have been targeted alongside other parliamentarians in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, was also blunt. China is not just a challenge to us, he said. It must be framed as a threat. “As they grow in power and potency, we are shrinking before them,” he said.

Seems real to me! So why would a red-blooded Englishman not feel the need to imitate the action of the tiger, stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood...?  

Today the world’s relations with China are in one area crucial. That country is responsible for more than a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and rising. Britain is now actively participating in China’s proposed “greening” of its BRI programme, which is largely about infrastructure. Given that a third of all greenhouse gas emissions are from construction – a fact still ignored by British planning policy – this collaboration with China is central to fighting the climate crisis.

Oh. Of course. The modern beta male's response when faced with a threat. A drawn-out whine of 'But..but global warming!'. 

... a sense of proportion remains the hardest but most necessary quality to maintain in international relations. We are told daily that global heating is the greatest threat now facing the world. Unless that applies only before lunch, then it should surely lie at the centre of all relations with China.

We'd have trouble facing up to China if it came to a shooting war, Simon. What chance do you think we'd stand against that huge ball of hydrogen in the firmament?  

Not So Much A ‘Radical Flank’, Chris…

...as urban terrorists who are unhinged about global warning nonsense. Just the sort of people you want knowing your address.

Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”.

Because that always happens, right, Chris? 

“I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday.“They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future.

“The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.”

By destroying public art and preventing the emergency services reaching people in need? Well, I suppose it makes as much sense as urging people to buy their eggs from Cambodia rather than Britain... 

Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest.”

Which is something they don't appear to have. So, can we see you forgoing your cosy BBC sinecure and glueing your hand to the pavement in future? 

“That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.”

Let's hope you end up in the same cell too then. 

Experts! What Do They Know?

Well, as it turns out...not a lot. 

It was almost 36 years ago that experts agreed to ban the production of a damaging class of man-made chemicals, known as CFCs.At the time, research had shown that CFCs depleted the ozone layer, the protective layer of our atmosphere that shields us from cancer-causing UV rays.

But this might not be enough, as the ozone hole has been 'remarkably massive' over the last four years, scientists in New Zealand now reveal.

Whoops! 

The authors of this new study claim there's been a 26 per cent loss in the core of the ozone hole in the past 19 years – but again, they're not sure why.

They've learned a little humility then. They were sure nearly 40 years ago, and look what effort went into something as a result. 

The findings suggest that 'changes in the Southern Hemisphere atmosphere' are contributing to a persistent Antarctic ozone hole. These changes could be related to the polar vortex – an atmospheric circulation pattern that sits high above the poles, in the stratosphere.

Gosh! Will we eventually see the global warming 'experts' have to similarly admit that that huge glowing ball of hydrogen in the sky might be the main driver of rising temperatures and not humankind? 

One Less Of Your Kind Is A Good Thing

This is the grandstanding 'climate scientist' who will be sacked for refusing to fly home:

Many people have asked why it is so important for me to travel as low-carbon as possible.

And far, far more have said 'Who?' 

I have three reasons. First, I want to be consistent with my moral commitment to avoid flying. Aviation is the biggest contributor to climate change of all forms of transport, a major factor in the rise in temperatures and the extreme weather events that we are witnessing more and more frequently all around the world.

Apart from that big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky, you mean? 

Second, I promised all the 1,800 participants in my research in Bougainville that I would return low-carbon. I want to keep my promise. White men (of whom I am one, as I am frequently reminded here) are often referred to as giaman – liars, fraudsters in Tok Pisin – probably with good reason given the country’s turbulent colonial past. I do not want to be seen as giaman.

I wonder what the native's word for 'sucker!' is? 

Finally, and most importantly, I hope my case might put a little crack into the wall of “selfishness, greed, and apathy”, which, in the words of climate lawyer Gus Speth, is the main hindrance to stopping runaway climate change. Many people will think that it is madness to give up their dream job to avoid taking one flight. But in the current era of climate breakdown, it is, in my opinion, insane to continue with “business as usual”, when science tells us that we are either dangerously close to or past the point of collapse for major ecosystems.

Yes, but the people who tell us that most often - the politicians and luvvies - aren't following your example, are they? They clearly don't believe what you claim. And with good reason. 

At the time of writing, I am waiting to embark on the cargo ship on the first leg of my low-carbon journey to Europe. When I arrive in Europe in about 45 days, I will be jobless. If, on my way, I manage to persuade people that our planet is seriously endangered and that radical, extraordinary action is needed, losing my job will have been a price worth paying.

Our planet has lasted millenia, and will continue to do so. We'll adapt. Like we always have done. Those who can't? Well, they'll wind up like you. 

With, Of Course, Exceptions For The Right People?

Joanna Lumley has suggested that a system of rationing similar to that seen during wartime, under which people would have a limited number of points to spend on holidays or lavish consumer goods, could eventually help to tackle the climate crisis.

Gosh, where to start? Apart from, 'What 'climate crisis'..? 

“These are tough times, and I think there’s got to be legislation,” she told the Radio Times. “That was how the war was – stuff was rationed – and at some stage I think we might have to go back to some kind of system of rationing, where you’re given a certain number of points and it’s up to you how to spend them, whether it’s buying a bottle of whisky or flying in an aeroplane.”

I know as you get older you tend to fetishise the 'good old days' but this is utterly barking even by usual luvvie standards! 

In a new documentary on ITV next week, Lumley travels around the UK...

On foot? By bike? 

...following the adventurer Sacha Dench – known as “the human swan” – as she attempts an epic 3,000-mile journey around the British coast in an electric paramotor.

While her luggage goes by road, I guess? Will such a method of transport catch on?

...in September, just days from her journey’s end, Dench and her support pilot and photographer Dan Burton, who was flying a conventional paramotor, collided in mid-air over the western Highlands. Burton, 54, a father of two from Devon, died, and Dench, 46, was seriously injured and remains in hospital.

Reader, it's a 'No!' from me... 

H/T: TheOtherDavidBellamy via Twitter

"It doesn’t have to result in a nanny state telling us how much to ration."

No, maybe not. Yet, somehow, it always does, doesn't it, Reader?

Ofwat chief executive, David Black, insisted the new differential charging is good for consumers and urged other water companies to follow the example set by Affinity.

He also made clear that a key aim of the scheme is to reduce water use, saying: ‘Water resources are being impacted by climate change which poses significant long-term challenges to river water health and security of water supply.

‘While charging is only one approach, companies need to use every tool at their disposal to support affordability, encourage us all to use water wisely and reduce our impact on the environment.

‘We want to see more companies seeking out and implementing innovative solutions.’

I want to see more companies cleaning up their own house first, before telling us how to behave while they are rifling through out pockets. 

Oooh, I Think I Know The Answer...

...is it 'Because they are even worse'..?

Some commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left – too far from the so-called “center.” This is utter rubbish.

Really? So what do you put it down to? 

The real failure of the Democratic party is its loss of the American working class.

As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concluded after the 2016 election: “Democrats don’t have a ‘white working-class’ problem. They have a ‘working-class problem’, which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate.”

That's true, indeed. And why do they no longer support Democrats? Because they've moved too far to the left! 

The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a rigged system.

You only have to look across the water to Europe, don't you? 

The New Puritanism...

Looks remarkably like the old one, doesn't it?

How the media communicates about climate breakdown reflects and shapes how societies engage with the issue. Behind every picture that makes it into the news is a person mirroring and perpetuating how society thinks about climate breakdown.

That it's not always a terrible, terrible thing that we must expend precious resources on trying to change? 

Our new research, led by the University of Exeter...

Another uttely pointless bit of 'research' that could be axed if only we had a truly conservative government... 

...highlights a distinct problem with how the European media visually represents news of extreme heat.

I hate heatwaves personally. But some people love them. Go figure! 

News media can picture heatwave visuals differently, though. The Dutch outlet Algemeen Dagblad produced visual stories of the reality of living with extreme heat. When they pictured a young family, they weren’t queueing for an ice-cream on a benign sunny day, but at home in front of a fan, looking visibly uncomfortable.

Could be me! 

We want to be clear that this isn’t a call to the media to redact all images of people enjoying the beach on a hot day...

But you would if you thought you could get away with it, wouldn't you? 

'Choice' Is Exactly What They Don't Want Anyone To Have...

...and if this isn't rejected, that's exactly what they will continue to push on everyone.

Green Party councillor Ian Middleton, put forward a motion to make sure all Oxfordshire County Council meetings are "entirely plant-based", and it was passed on Tuesday's full council meeting.

Nor was that his only demand: 

The motion also called for targeted education in schools on dietary health, food growing, preparation and waste avoidance and for the county school meals service to make fully plant-based menus available to schools that ask for them.

Because we all know schools have successfully taught all children to read, write and add up and are just twiddling their thumbs? 

However, Conservative councillor David Bartholomew feels the motion is "unacceptable" and says that veganism should be a choice.

In the normal world, it is.  

It will now be considered by the council cabinet before implementation.

And I've little hope that the 

Speaking after the meeting Mr Middleton said:"No one is taking away free choice, these changes will only affect those who wish to avail themselves of food provided by the council. What members do outside the council walls is their own affair."

But that's how these things always start, isn't it?  Impacting one small - often despised - group of people, before they move on to everyone.  

But you can't argue with fanaticism:

Mr Middleton said: "These are not choices we're making for ourselves, but for future generations. This is a very minor change that sends a powerful message to the people we represent that we take tackling climate change seriously and are prepared to play our part as community leaders".

Enjoy your taxpayer-funded food, but I'll make my own choices with my own money. And looking at the vegan offerings always adorning the supermarket 'buy it now at reduced price before we bin it' so does everyone else... 

It Would Be Funny If It Wasn't Such A Disaster...

Eco-friendly light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs used in streetlamps produce more light pollution and are killing off insects, a new study shows.

Maybe they should have made the study before rolling them out everywhere...?  

They're often energy-efficient, cheap to run and brighter with more blue wavelengths, but this means they're also likely making insects more exposed to predators. The insects could also be getting killed from coming into contact with hot lights, which may also deter them from laying eggs.

Moths are important because they're pollinators, hosts for parasitoids and prey for vertebrates like birds and bats and invertebrates like spiders, the experts say.

*sighs* Once again, just as with diesel vehicles, the 'sage experts' have proven to be not worth their hire.

But since 'science' got us into this, maybe it can get us out? 

Boyes told MailOnline that minor tweaks that could be made to LEDs that could minimise their negative impacts on insects without comprising on energy efficiency, such as reducing emission of blue wavelengths.

I wonder how much that'll cost? And who'll pay..?

"You Stand Accused Of Heresy. How Do You Plead?"

'Guilty'.

The BBC has removed an educational page laying out the “benefits” of climate change after a furious online reaction.

BBC Bitesize, its website for schoolchildren, claimed warmer temperatures “could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles” and that a benefit of climate change could mean easier access to oil in Alaska and Siberia.

And...isn't that a possibility? Should we ignore it. 

Other apparent benefits highlighted by the BBC included the ability to one day grow more crops in Siberia, new shipping routes created by melting ice, and more tourist destinations.

Also true. But we can't, apparently, handle the truth. Says who? 

After a backlash from climate experts and campaigners, including the Guardian writer George Monbiot, the page, aimed at year 10 students, was amended to only include the negative impacts of climate change.

Ah. The usual suspects. 

The exam board Eduqas said the information was not taken from its curriculum, adding: “Within our GCSE geography specifications, we examine the consequences of climate change and its respective impact on our planet.

“As part of our courses, we also ask students to explore opposing attitudes to climate change. However, we do not advocate a positive viewpoint on this topic.”

What are you doing advocating any viewpoint? Why not just lay out the facts and let people think for themselves? 

Scotland’s exam board recently came under fire from the Scottish Green party for teaching the “positives” of climate change.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority geography course gave benefits of climate change such as “increased tourism to more northerly latitudes” and “improved crop yields”.

The political party said it was “deeply inappropriate” for the SQA to specify the pros and cons should be given equal consideration.

Clearly, across the border, they are made of sterner stuff: 

The SQA responded: “Analysing and evaluating a variety of views is essential to critical thinking.”

Which we must discourage, lest people indulge in wrongthink.