@McJuggerNuggets I’m not sure what you expected to happen when you told the world you killed your unborn child because our EA gonna be a bit inconvenient and tough not to. At the very least, this should probably have been a private matter.
This is why people despise regime actors. Because instead of tackling any issue of substance, they must take a murder victim’s blood on their grubby fingers and sprawl woke platitudes on every wall.
Black people are almost 9 times likely to be stopped and searched, 5 times more likely to have force used against them. Much more likely to be charged and to be refused bail - National Police Chiefs' Council.
Real discrimination. Real two tiers.
https://t.co/NaLiQ72r7s
Yesterday, while political attention focused on the shocking Nowak case, Ed Miliband confirmed to Parliament what had long been expected. He said the Government intends to legislate for the Seventh Carbon Budget (CB7), committing Britain to cut emissions by 87% below 1990 levels by around 2040.
Under the Climate Change Act, ministers must legislate for the budget by 30 June 2026. Miliband has said the delivery plan will be published "as soon as reasonably practical".
Why does CB7 matter?
Politicians often sell Net Zero as simple substitution and "transition". Petrol cars become electric cars. Gas boilers become heat pumps. Aviation fuel becomes sustainable aviation fuel. Life then continues much as before but cleaner.
But the CCC’s own pathway shows something much broader and intrusive. It requires not only new technology and electrification, but managed changes in demand, diet, aviation, land use, industry and much more.
Aviation exposes the problem. Ministers can use the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book and claim that holidays are not banned, but the real question is whether flying becomes more expensive and restricted. With little evidence that SAF, electric flight or other innovations can decarbonise aviation at scale, demand growth will have to be limited using a mix of indirect and direct measures. As the CCC said in February, "Aviation demand can only grow if aviation sector technology roll-out progresses."
Diet follows a similar logic. Policymakers rarely dwell on meat and dairy, but the CCC pathway assumes lower meat consumption, fewer domestic livestock and land released from farming. Ministers haven't really started and yet we are already seeing the consequences. Milk, butter and beef are among the fastest-rising food categories, in part because UK policy has helped shrink domestic herds. Cow numbers have been falling by roughly 3% a year for the last decade.
This is why language matters. Sanitised terms such as "demand management", "low-carbon choices" and "land-use change" sound administrative. In practice, they mean state direction of ordinary life and a managed retreat from the freedoms of modern consumer capitalism.
Ed Miliband has been very explicit about this. In Go Big, his post-pandemic manifesto, he writes that the purpose of his climate mission is "to abandon this 300-year model of economic growth."
This is why the argument now comes down to trust.
For two decades, politicians like Miliband have told the public that the green transition would make energy cheaper and more secure. That promise has not survived contact with reality. In 2026, Britain has some of the highest power prices in the developed world. With so little spare capacity, we have also left ourselves more exposed to energy shocks, from the war in Ukraine to instability in the Middle East.
The next phase of Net Zero now reaches into family holidays, diet, farming and everyday freedom of movement.
Can we really trust the same political class that got energy costs so badly wrong to impose the next round of legally binding emissions cuts? They have failed to protect the public during the cost of living crisis. Why should anyone trust them to protect us from higher costs and taxes over the remaining 24 years of the "transition"?
The stakes at the next election could scarcely be higher.
@jbf789@CatholicArena whatever you think is going on in the original post - it’s simply that fertility is recorded/reported as number of offspring per woman.
@jbf789@CatholicArena Not really. I mean, you’re not exactly breaking ground here, are you? It has always been the case that more men than women end up dying childless. Why would I be pissed about that? I was merely pointing out that the omission is not an intentional attempt to “blame women”, or>
@SVPhillimore Also, for people who are not genderbollocks believers, the only possible reason to indulge any of it is courtesy and politeness. And those are a two way street. “I’d prefer you to refer to me as though I’m a woman even though you believe I’m a man” is something I would at least >
@jbf789@CatholicArena I also wouldn’t really share your framing. Most people who end up childless didn’t want to. That’s a tragedy and an issue that needs to be addressed - not an opportunity to fire up the blame and outrage machine.
@jbf789@CatholicArena I think it’s probably a shared responsibility, tbh. The “gender wars” in a species that has survived through catastrophe - up to the near-extinction of the species through cooperation between the sexes - strike me as very silly.
I’m old enough to remember when the lawful killing of gang member Mark Duggan kicked off days of rioting in 2011 and the laptop class were falling over themselves to tell us all we needed youth clubs and more wealth transfer to the rioters.