• Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seemed to me that Starmer falls in the “I don’t really believe there’s a climate catastrophe happening” camp.

    If he did, he wouldn’t say stuff like this or - more importantly - avoid adopting policies that require immediate action when he gets into power.

    “Tree huggers” = people who believe the climate catastrophe is an imminent existential crisis.

    • dad@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

      • Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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