I am not particularly reassured that Labour are outsourcing policy advisory roles to people who supported this rubbish government.In her statement she says this:Yes, so what has she been offered for that?Very unimpressed by this.Nat’s role is to be poster girl for the Rwanda Scheme being a gimmick and Starmer’s policy being better.
Watch carefully what happens to Natalie Elphicke next.
She'll almost certainly have been offered something.
My guess is Starmer has a few more of these lined up for the summer. Will keep disintegration in the headlines for the Tories.
"That’s why I’m honoured to have been asked to work with Keir and the team to help deliver the homes we need."
This sounds very similar to the situation with the other bloke. Dan Poulter. Who is supposedly going to be part of some health reform policy advisory team. So it looks like Labour is creating a bunch of policy-related sinecures for ex-Tory MPs.
Presumably, as some are red and some are green, they are copies of Hansard. In which case, @Theuniondivvie was right - no one has read them!...Those books look exactly the kind of cardboard mockup one sees in furniture chain shops.Photos ready and everything.Do they have libraries on BA flights these days? Stewardess, another Gin and Tonic please,
UJ on display - ✔
Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔
Loads of books we've never read - ✔
Shiteating smiles - ✔
Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
Real world data (not modelled projections):Crop crisis in the UK:A dispassionate look at crop yields suggests we are getting higher yields than ever. And though I will be mocked for this, increased CO2 in the atmosphere can be beneficial for plant growth. We will I am sure see shifting weather patterns, issues with low lying land. Nothing that cannot be solved, if the will is there. The harder point is we all (i.e. everyone on the planet) wants the western lifestyle - and why shouldn't they aspire to it? We love it, after all. How you do that for the global south whilst getting to net zero and dealing with potential climate refugees is the challenge.Greenland Ice Sheet relatively slow, because it will melt in situ. Possibly a couple of thousand years to completely melt. But the Nile Delta becomes useless for agriculture because of salt long before it melts completely.Time scale for the Greenland Ice sheet? Decades? Centuries? Millenia? The issue is how we handle the effects. Some have argued we are already seeing climate refugees, although I think that was disputed. We certainly see a lot around wars. I'm certainly not claiming climate change is not a huge, huge challenge - it is, but we are already taking huge strides. More will be needed. I think I am just a more optimistic person than some.2.5 degrees dooms the Greenland Ice Sheet. You lose a lot of valuable river deltas and agricultural land as a result, plus almost all existing coastal infrastructure.Show your working for that. What is the disaster? Step back from the rhetoric and look at the science.2.5 degrees isn't a 'challenge', it's a disaster.What do you think it holds for them? Serious question. We have challenges around climate change, but we are also good at solving them. Crop yields continue to increase. Population growth (the biggest contributor to climate change is too many humans) is going into reverse across the developed world. We are learning how to do without fossil fuels. Someone asked what the government(s) of the UK had done since 2010 - well look at how much renewable power we have now.World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C targetIt is highly depressing. Seriously starting to find it difficult to look at the children in my family and not feel heartbroken about what the future holds for them.
Exclusive: Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
Its not enough yet, but there is a path. 2.5 degrees is a challenge, but the challenge is more about how we deal with human society.
The consequences for rainfall patterns are much harder to predict, but what indications there are, are not good, particularly for Southern Europe and China. In many respects China is one of the countries whose agriculture is most vulnerable to global warming.
The numbers of climate refugees from, for example, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc, would be astronomical.
It would have been a lot cheaper to stop using fossil fuels earlier.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a much bigger potential threat, because it could slip into the ocean very quickly. I don't think anyone has put a lower bound on the timescale, but it's much more uncertain.
There are now tentative signs in the data that the rate of warming and sea level rise have started to accelerate. And, globally, we haven't yet peaked carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm more optimistic than I was ten years ago. I think technology has made some huge strides forward. But the impacts on agriculture are very concerning. You just have to look at the disruption Russia's temporary blockade on Ukrainian grain exports created to see how vulnerable the global food market is. Even in the best case scenario it's going to be a damned close run thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/10/uk-food-production-down-record-rainfall-farmers
Crop yields down:
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/crop-yields-reduced-climate-extremes-finds-study
Impact on Crop Yields expected within 10 years (from 2021):
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/
Global wheat production reducing:
https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/wheat-production-decline-ukraine-russia-grain-deal/693551/
Peak demand for energy in California does not match peak insolation:Solar is awesome when your demand peak is for air conditioning in the summer.California's batteries will charge from solar all year round though with their 3348 hours of sunlight per year (Nicely distributed) to get through the night. The UK has ~ 1400 or so and it's much more seasonal than LA.Did you read the NY Times article about battery backup in the US: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.htmlIn related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production.Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperatureIf you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).Oh the US get it, and so do China. The US is spending upwards of a trillion dollars on tax incentives for green energy investment under the inflation reduction act and China is flooding the European market with cheap green tech. Unlike us and our European neighbours they actually understand the economic opportunities available from net zero.Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperatureIf you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).
As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.
It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.
At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.
The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)
Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.
In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.
There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.
As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.
https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,Los-Angeles,United-States-of-America
https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,London,United-Kingdom
Unsure of the wind battery situation though. Perhaps that's more favourable ?
Less so, when it’s for heating on that calm and cold day in January.
That said, as the price of solar keeps coming down, the idea of a British solar farm in Morocco, with a massive cable connecting it to the UK Grid, doesn’t seem quite as totally bonkers as it did a few years ago.
I really respect your honest appraisal of this defection and labour do not need the endorsement of a right wing Johnson Truss Jenrick supporter seeking some kind of revenge against SunakDespite the ritual dismissing by the Tories of this defection, I cannot recall a more damaging one. It gives RefUK yet another stick to beat Sunak with whilst, at the same time, completely blunting Sunak’s attacks on Labour that they don’t have plan on illegal immigration. If its purpose was to hurt Sunak and is likely to work big time.It seems downright vindictive - ie very much in the spirit of those right wing tories who are constantly plotting against Rishi Sunak. There's also some synergy with the thread header in that it's a politician doing something reprehensible but for no obvious personal benefit. It might help us electorally, as you say, but a person with her views has no place in Labour imo. As a party member I feel the same about this as I do about Leon's threat to vote for us. The big win is coming (and I can't wait) but our mandate is going to get a bit tainted if we're not careful.
Trust GuidoGuido is not the most reliable political t***pot in the blogosphere. You'd be better off sticking to the more moderate, reliable and by comparison left wing ConHome.
https://order-order.com/2024/05/08/listen-rachel-reeves-told-defector-elphicke-to-fk-off/
If they were used to red team the development of genuinely radical policies (sadly unlikely), that might actually have been very productive.In her statement she says this:Yes, so what has she been offered for that?Very unimpressed by this.Nat’s role is to be poster girl for the Rwanda Scheme being a gimmick and Starmer’s policy being better.
Watch carefully what happens to Natalie Elphicke next.
She'll almost certainly have been offered something.
My guess is Starmer has a few more of these lined up for the summer. Will keep disintegration in the headlines for the Tories.
"That’s why I’m honoured to have been asked to work with Keir and the team to help deliver the homes we need."
This sounds very similar to the situation with the other bloke. Dan Poulter. Who is supposedly going to be part of some health reform policy advisory team. So it looks like Labour is creating a bunch of policy-related sinecures for ex-Tory MPs.
Maybe Elphicke knows what is in her heart better than we do.I really respect your honest appraisal of this defection and labour do not need the endorsement of a right wing Johnson Truss Jenrick supporter seeking some kind of revenge against SunakDespite the ritual dismissing by the Tories of this defection, I cannot recall a more damaging one. It gives RefUK yet another stick to beat Sunak with whilst, at the same time, completely blunting Sunak’s attacks on Labour that they don’t have plan on illegal immigration. If its purpose was to hurt Sunak and is likely to work big time.It seems downright vindictive - ie very much in the spirit of those right wing tories who are constantly plotting against Rishi Sunak. There's also some synergy with the thread header in that it's a politician doing something reprehensible but for no obvious personal benefit. It might help us electorally, as you say, but a person with her views has no place in Labour imo. As a party member I feel the same about this as I do about Leon's threat to vote for us. The big win is coming (and I can't wait) but our mandate is going to get a bit tainted if we're not careful.
If she had been true to her beliefs and the things she has said she should have joined reform
This has a bit of an air of Peter Thurnham about it, if you remember him from the fag end of the Major Government. He was a similar age to Elphicke and held a seat he'd have been doomed to lose had he stood again. He was just rather disaffected with it all and jumped to the Lib Dems - not to further his career but to end it in a way that annoyed a few people who had irritated him. I think he was essentially a nice enough bloke who just decided to stick two fingers up as a final flourish - there was no deal asked for or given, and he disappeared from view (sadly died of cancer a few years ago, not at a young age but without having the retirement he may have hoped for).Very unimpressed by this.I’m not yet convinced. She was facing the humiliation of defeat, and has found a way out that retains some self respect and settles some scores with her/her husband’s former colleagues. I doubt we’ll hear from her again.
Watch carefully what happens to Natalie Elphicke next.
She'll almost certainly have been offered something.
Fiddling while Rome burns...5. Pragmatists (“Let’s build a good mix of power sources, favouring renewables but also trying to minimise overcapacity, and keep reviewing as the capital costs of renewables come down over time”)I hadn't but this stuff is very heartening. It gives the lie to the kind of pessimistic stuff we had a few days ago because one single battery backup plant in Eastern England could "only power the entire UK grid for 15 seconds". As if anyone ever expected one plant (or indeed one storage source) to power the entire grid.Did you read the NY Times article about battery backup in the US: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.htmlIn related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production.Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperatureIf you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).Oh the US get it, and so do China. The US is spending upwards of a trillion dollars on tax incentives for green energy investment under the inflation reduction act and China is flooding the European market with cheap green tech. Unlike us and our European neighbours they actually understand the economic opportunities available from net zero.Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperatureIf you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).
As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.
It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.
At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.
The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)
Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.
In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.
There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.
As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.
I think there's a political compass on ecology like there is on most things:
1. Pessimistic sceptics ("why should we cut emissions when China is building more coal plants")
2. Optimistic sceptics ("Greta Thunberg types are just watermelons who want us all to wear hairshirts")
3. Pessimistic environmentalists ("we're all going to die and it's capitalism's fault")
4. Optimistic environmentalists ("let's build more solar farms")