Is this alternative perspective of which you speak not the mainstream view heavily promoted by oil, gas and coal interests, particularly in the US with their huge investments in self promotion and political donations, heavily funded efforts to discredit legitimate climate science research while astroturfing the public with their own often questionable science?
The worst of this is, like the tobacco companies before them, they have suppressed the knowledge found by their own researchers about the adverse effects of their product. Nicotine is hugely addictive, as well as toxic, and takes a great effort of will to give it up, and there are great societal health benefits in doing so. Ultimately though, it is the individual's decision, passive smoking notwithstanding. With climate change we are all likely to be affected, and with possibly unforseeable effects on future generations.
Is this the alternative perspective that we have had as background noise for so many decades that many people still actually believe that there is disagreement between scientists about climate change occurring or is just another conspiracy theory, when there is now pretty much international consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring at an ever increasing rate?
It's ironic that you say that the measures are driven by politics. The fossil fuel interests have used their financial leverage and the prospect of dire consequences on the economies of countries world wide to keep governments voting for measures that will protect them. The tiny voices of a few climate protesters and green parliamentarians have not had a lot of influence until recently, and suddenly they are seen as a threat when they are holding governments to account.
"Not driven by science", "Ignorance or at least a misunderstanding of the science". Classic arguments from the fossil fuel industry when faced with climate change statements?
There is no denying that there have been benefits to a segment of the world's population from the exploitation of coal, gas and oil over the last couple of centuries but the benefits have been to the industrialised nations of the Northern hemisphere in the main, while the increasing negative effects have been suffered world wide, and likely felt more in the less industrial southern hemisphere. So to speak of the denial of the alleged increase in lifespan, general health and lifestyle of those who wouldn't be exposed to the fossil fuel way of life due to your unspecified proposed measures seems rather disingenuous. The global culture reaches everywhere. Even if you haven't got modern sanitation or a transport infrastructure you are likely to have a mobile phone.
Why haven't the (non specified) poorer areas you mention got richer bearing in mind that the west have had large scale use of coal oil or gas for maybe 200 years? Maybe they will be no worse off and at least will be less liable to be flooded, or suffer drought, or wild fires. A bit of a non statement really.
If I am misappropriating comments I apologise but I just can't let such vague statements be. Maybe you are playing devil's advocate. Maybe you truly believe in what you write. I can't tell.
The movement to replace fossil fuel and reduce carbon output has an enormous mountain to climb. There are bound to be winners and losers but the biggest obstacle is the entrenched, established and well organised fossil fuel industry. If they were at all interested in changing to a greener image they have vast wealth at their disposal and could have started many years ago in even a small way. What happened to the expansion of hydrogen fuel cell technology? Why the current obsession with battery electric vehicles for example? Lithium resources are finite, the mining in third world countries is often done in appalling conditions for the workers with minimal environmental protection. It is highly toxic. A lot needs to be done, and governments are sitting on their hands.
I don't necessarily agree with the methods used by such as Extinction Rebellion and have no plans to park my posterior on a motorway anytime soon but they are making a point and trying to emphasise that time is getting short.
I'll be going as long to The COP to park my metaphorical posterior on the tarmac on behalf of the smaller scale and peasant farmer, in November .
To represent on behalf of the problems that farmers and food producers face, due to CC, but also talk about some the solutions wecan offer, in terms of carbon reduction sequestration , and food supply resilience.
Globally, not in just in UK.
It's mired in unfairness who gets to go , who gets to speak , who gets into the inner spaces.
Who has leverage, who doesn't .
As a representative of of union, of millions of peasant type farmers, who in turn feed billions of people world wide using place, and climate, and soil, and food sovereignty appropriate, methods.
I'm not expecting to 'influence' the suits so much.
The majority of it is networking among ourselves , at fringe and civil society events.
Showing solidarity with essential food and land workers across the globe.
Who do feed the world.
Many of whom of course cant be there because if cost, or visa, or covid restrictions .
All deeply unfair.
Given they're the ones who are the most affected.
So we are obligated to speak for them too..
As much as we can.
We shall see, .
I'm going with an open mind.
But not necessarily an overly optimistic heart.
But we can't stop now, at least trying.
And we can't stop talking about regenerative, soil building ,more human scaled, productive , biodiversity encouraging farming methods.
That can offer some hope, and many solutions
The COP in it itself is deeply flawed, organised, and even 'stitched up' between the players most culpable for CC in the first place
But it's perhaps our best, and only hope right now.
And no I'm not going by sprout powered bicycle.
I wish I had the time, to do that..
Just the train.
