Jo Abbess on the other hand predicts that the climate movement in the UK will be steamrollered flat by the jobs & benefits politics. Needlessly pessimistic, says Guy, "I want to inspire people".
Susan Sheehan weighs in, with the contribution that "Jo is right that we need to address jobs & poverty.. Can be done with local green jobs".
I don't quite see how this follows. But now here comes Guy again, apparently secure that he is among friends:
Absolutely agree: solving climate is a lot of work which = jobs!So that's the language they use to each other.
What does that mean?
And if it did mean anything, how could it possibly be achieved?
Evidently it would involve jobs. Those sorts of jobs doubtless mean more subsidies. But in case you hadn't noticed, Guy, there's no more money.
Here's something else you've probably tried hard not to notice: temperatures have been flat these past 15 or so years.
Global warming is so last century.
Does that solve the climate for you?