Mary Robinson lambasts Fossil Fuel Industry

road_high

getting seriously sick and tired of hearing Uber privileged demagogues like Robinson shite on about climate change, jet hopping allover the planet to talk to fellow elites commanding obscene levels of taxpayer funding. The whole thing is a complete sham

Homesick Alien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121084828#Comment_121084828

If you want to engage people you need to be physically present. Anyone subjected to Zoom calls regularly will attest to that. It's disingenuous to suggest that she could appear on a screen and have the same impact. The impact that a speech from Mary Robinson can have vs the environmental impact of her flight to get there are not worth comparing. No one on earth is carbon neutral, it's literally impossible, and yet climate sceptics will constantly fall back on whataboutery to make an argument. Like for some reason you can't be successful and have a view on climate change. Only those eating beans straight from the tin know what's really going on. It's just silly.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121085571#Comment_121085571

There's nothing wrong per se with your point.

The problem though is the choice of person to deliver it.

As mentioned above, the late Peter Sutherland was wont to lecture us from his EU throne on our responsibilities to immigrants. There's a case to be made one way or another there as well. But he was completely the wrong voice to deliver it. Since he & his would be utterly unaffected.

Doctor Jimbob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121084016#Comment_121084016

I'm in favour of measures to reduce the impact of climate change, and I don't agree with the suggestion that people being against fossil fuels while using them are hypocrites - one can disagree with something and work to change it while also using that thing if it's the only realistic option available. That being said, I think there's a lot of merit in reframing the green energy debate to be less focused on climate change. As you said, it's a good thing in itself. Less pollution and less reliance on exports from dodgy countries would be a benefit regardless of the climate issue.

I don't like the fact that a lot of people don't care about or believe in climate change, but they exist. Ignoring or berating them is not the answer.

Pa ElGrande

Usual making up numbers to support a narrative, that subsequently fail under examination, that aside, this line caught my eye.

“And frankly democracies are not coping well with the crisis because it’s difficult in a democracy to take hard decisions when you want to be re-elected. Unfortunately we’re not taking hard decisions quickly enough.

There are over 7 billion people on the planet in 2023. On the whole, the evidence by most metrics measuring well being, show that humans, especially those that live in democracies, are coping very well, largely on the back of energy provided by hydrocarbons. There is no climate emergency, crisis, global boiling or whatever alarmist public relations stunt Robinson and her co-conspirators pull in their dry run for tyranny, their claim is entirely a political construct. Those pesky non conforming (i.e. populist) democracies keep getting in the way as more people discover the opportunity cost of unreliable and expensive energy and other mission creep that goes along with it, as increased restrictions are imposed on population, unsurprisingly people in democracies reject the authoritarian ethos the climate believers promote. The real evidence is contrary to what Mary Robinson claims, wealthy people democracies tend to promote civil rights and environmentalism, with the caveat the population can afford it.

Yet, it is undeniable that nearly all wealthy democratic states have failed to respond adequately to the climate crisis. By contrast, various less affluent authoritarian regimes have been successful in implementing stringent climate policies, and several are now considered global leaders in the production and installation of “solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and [the adoption of] electric vehicles.”3 But, while questions about the relative efficacy of democratic and authoritarian regimes are highly relevant, they do not comprise my focus here. Rather, I am interested in determining under what conditions authoritarian climate governance may be considered legitimate and, more broadly, how governments’ responses to climate change influence normative assessments of their political legitimacy. source

By way of example, the country with the most electric vehicles is China, they have so many, parking is a problem. Chinese companies also carry out much of the raw materials processing of rare earth materials needed to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, computers and other electronic equipment. The Chinese government recently signaled it will pursue it's own path and won't be encumbered by net-zero policies.

Mary Robinson resigned as president 26 years ago (1997). How much have Irish taxpayers shelled out for her pensions and expense claims? It must be north of €3 million by now. Meanwhile, According to her, us tax paying plebeians must lead a less wasteful and more sustainable life. Coincidentally, we can afford to pay to be lectured by troughers like Mary Robinson and Michael D on why King Canute, if he only had implemented climate justice (i.e. socialism) policies would have been able to command the tides.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121085706#Comment_121085706

Fascinating stuff. Unbelievable marketing.

The fossil fuel industry has so many unpaid volunteers that will defend it against their own countrymen/women. Even Mary Robinson, Irelands most popular president ever who basically helped in transform Ireland.

Jizique

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121082210#Comment_121082210

And Sutherland was Chairman of both Goldman Sachs and BP - in fairness to Suds, can't remember him lecturing to us from a lofty perch like Robinson

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121086491#Comment_121086491

Mr. Koch (May he rest in peace) is definitely not writing me any cheques. Seeing as we are all avid consumers of hydrocarbon derived products and energy on this forum, we must acknowledge the essential role fossil fuels play in providing the creature comforts we enjoy + essentials like food, warmth & shelter and not be so quick to bite the hand that feeds us. There is another thread that goes back and forth on the merits of pursuing other green policies and you can take them up there.

Your criticism does not address Mary Robinsons attack on voters participating in democratic elections that vote according their own interests (populism = voting against the establishment) and not following the technocratic (belief in infallibility of establishment experts) line that she endorses on the subject. She attempts to account for "failure in democracy" by deflecting blame on an industry sector. The irony of a person who was elected president is a democratic election, who then condemns democracy when the result does not suit her agenda?

Why is a person who gets frequent regular free exposure for her cause in global mass media, resorting to giving unsubstantiated figures about shadowy industry figures paying billions to subvert peoples opinion, while ignoring the saturation coverage of climate change alarm in mass media and government not promulgating a conspiracy theory? Or could it be, that on the whole, the general population has better things to do and is more concerned with essentials in their lives (cost of living, food and shelter are top of peoples concerns), and in this list of priorities climate change ranks at the bottom consistently in survey after survey of voters.

The fossil fuel companies did not hire the yellow vests in France, nor the Farmers in the Netherlands as unpaid spokespersons.

L.Ball

Look just pay higher taxes, travel less and eat less meat and that will stop climate activists from starting forest fires and it's also stop seasonal storms and weather patterns.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121084606#Comment_121084606

No goalposts moved whatsoever. The man will pay at the pumps as usual.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121086736#Comment_121086736

Don't get me wrong. I'm involved in advertising and marketing so I love the fact that you're representing big big business, researching on the internet, gathering info and posting huge long posts defending these companies... all for nothing. Furthermore, you're willing to go completely on the attack when it comes to anyone that criticises them.

It's just brilliant. This is what $4 billion a year to the best propagandists gets you. Millions of loyal followers who'll stay up late tapping away defending their clients.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121086910#Comment_121086910

Interesting viewpoint. Your comment reminds me of a Bill Hicks sketch on how marketing looks at the world. More hydro-carbons are required to support the global population, so in that narrow sense you are correct, me defending these companies won't make a jot of difference, the hydro-carbon industry as a whole are not going to lose global market share i.e. when we in Ireland can't consume their products, someone else in the world will benefit, the demand for their product continues to grow (See IEA projections).  On the flip side climate change marketing spend buys it's own loyal promoters trying to persuade people they can be "green" by simply consuming the right products and engaging in their ritual behaviour, in the process take market share from their competition.  Climate change industry is 3 times the size of the fossil fuel industry, that should not surprise anyone, hydrocarbons are a raw material input used in the production of higher value end products.

John_Rambo

"me defending these companies won't make a jot of difference"

But there's lots of your type, millions of fanboys willing to follow the herd & trot out the adages, tow the line & come up with the usual analogies.. . And you're all perfectly willing to take time out to defend these super rich companies whom you've no affinity with and blindly talk down the climate change as you sit sweating in front of your laptop ignoring world wide farming concerns as a number of heat waves are happening across the northern hemisphere since April 2023, many of which are ongoing. Various heat records have been broken, with July being the hottest month ever recorded in Europe.

But... it's good. Marketing works. Keep up the good work, keep posting, keep "researching" & keep up the "fight" that you think represent you.

You've no skin in the game

You're not an oil man

You're not a FF haulage man

You're not a coal man

You're not a gas miner

You're not a peat harvester

You're not a FF prospector

But you're a good boy. And, when it comes to marketing and loyalty, that's what we want.

Good boys, keep at it, be a good boy and keep at it.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121087932#Comment_121087932

You don't know me, therefore you cannot know how much skin the game I have. In fact, when it comes hydrocarbons we all have skin in the game, some of it more direct as you outline, others have pension funds or are investors. Most of us closely watch fuel pump prices and shop around to get the best price. Winter heating oil and the price of gas are a big concern for many households. Many of the tools we will use today depend on availability of cheap and reliable energy, want to do one-click shopping, and have the product delivered to your door? How soon do you want it? How much will you pay in carriage fees? How much energy does that process consume end to end? You don't care, you got the product.

... blindly talk down the climate change as you sit sweating in front of your laptop ignoring world wide farming concerns as a number of heat waves are happening across the northern hemisphere since April 2023, many of which are ongoing. Various heat records have been broken, with July being the hottest month ever recorded in Europe.

You accused me of being in the thrall of the fossil fuel industry, intuited from your background in marketing, you overstate your case. You went ahead and committed the same sin by repeating the marketing hype around climate change while offering no proof. Your information is sourced from cheap media packages in wide circulation, one of the developments of the telecommunications revolution being audiovisual presentations of disasters from most locations on the planet can be flashed around the world in minutes, i.e. "if it bleeds it leads". Since you decided to focus on temperature in a specific region of the globe, can you tell me what the deviation from the average in that region is? Can you tell me how long humans have been recording air temperatures in Europe?, How many temperature sensors where there when people started measuring temperature compared to today? Why don't the media packages distinguish between between the effect of natural cycles (Hunga Tonga, El Niño conditions) from the concentration of infra-red active gases produced by human activity on temperature? Why are the values recorded in 2023 different to previous years?

The recorded global temperature for previous years: (source)

2015 average: 0.98 °F (0.54 °C) below normal

2016 average: 0.48 °F (0.27 °C) below normal

2017 average: 0.47 °F (0.26 °C) below normal

2018 average: 1.33 °F (0.74 °C) below normal

2019 average: 0.65 °F (0.36 °C) below normal

2020 average: 0.00 °F (0.00 °C) below normal

2021 average: 0.20 °F (0.11 °C) below normal

2022 average: 0.47 °F (0.26 °C) below normal

It's difficult, that requires diligent research and time and there is little if any money in it, much more profitable in the short term to fall in line and repeat a simple marketing slogan, it's well known in marketing that repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. It's easy to lay the blame for uncertainties and inconsistencies in data on bogeymen (Fossil fuel companies, Capitalist roaders, Jews etc.) without offering proof, you brand the people who don't believe the narrative as deniers and shut them down.

“The fossil fuel lobby spends about $4 billion every year communicating on the dark side - messing up the science, pretending it’s not real or denying it, muddying it, and then trying to prolong fossil fuel indefinitely into the future instead of phasing it out as quickly as possible,” she said. source

Mary Robinson did not just tag fossil fuel companies, she blamed voters for their unwillingness to suffer for the cause. Take one for the team, live a more sustainable life, i.e. consume prescribed products, all the while she pulls up the drawbridge behind her and closes opportunities for the next generation.

“And frankly democracies are not coping well with the crisis because it’s difficult in a democracy to take hard decisions when you want to be re-elected.

“Unfortunately we’re not taking hard decisions quickly enough. For example here in Ireland we’re not on course to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 50pc by 2030 or 55pc as it is likely to be under new EU rules.” source

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121086511#Comment_121086511

don't want to get sidetracked, but he was very dismissive of "small minded" Irish, and some countries belief in "sovereignty".

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/peter-sutherland-moral-merkel-fragile-europe-sneering-ireland-1.2454732

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395 -  EU should do its best to undermine the homogeneity of its Member States by encouraging more migration and greater multiculturalism.

20silkcut

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121088574#Comment_121088574

I am not a person with a wonderful amount of brains like Mr Sutherland . That is an utterly stupid policy.

I am actually flabbergasted by it. It’s from 2015 I haven’t come across it before.

I am an utter moron I thought the refugee crisis was broadly an accident of circumstance.

it’s actually an official f**king policy. With an end goal of making us all less cohesive and more international. Whatever that is????

what a great idea!! That will end well!!

what happens when the plebs realise.

Do they think people will accept that even if on the lofty macro level where they dwell it is good for them and appears good for us.

Does he realise that if the yanks pull the plug on globalisation that’s it. And they are increasingly moving towards that.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121088426#Comment_121088426

Well, you've been a busy boy when the rest of us were out enjoying the heat!

Keep up the good (unpaid) work! The fossil fuel industry loves you and the rest of your relentless flock!

mazdamiatamx5

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121086511#Comment_121086511

He most certainly did lecture us from a great height, as regards if we don't accept lots and lots of immigrants we are bad people. That was his retirement gig. His ideology was broadly similar to Robinson's.

fits

zzz

TedBundysDriver

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121085522#Comment_121085522

People aren't buying what they are selling and it's making the likes of shams like Robinson even more unbearable.

prunudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121085522#Comment_121085522

My biggest gripe is with Bezos, he's made billions off probably the biggest driver of climate change in modern times, wasteful consumerism. Next day delivery of items that often arent essential yet convenience has us buying them anyway. Items that often end up in land fill as their qaulity is questionable. Not to mention his use of private jets and desire for space tourism. And these are the people that lecture us about climate change.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121088574#Comment_121088574

Peter was not a fan of Democracy, he was always clear that he viewed it as handing over control to the lower downs in society.

Danzy

As for the idea that democracies prevent action on climate change.

It is pretty much only democratic countries that are taking action.

Climate change Will be won or lost in China and India.

The scale of carbon output from China is at a rate the West couldn't imagine at the height of Industrial might.

China's economy is no longer just about exports to the west, 25 years ago certainly.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121091492#Comment_121091492

I absolutely loath Robinson these days but she's not wrong.... Climate change is real and it's gonna affect this generation and every other generation. And a lot of very gullible people are buying what amounts to propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

TedBundysDriver

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121092145#Comment_121092145

Of course it's real. The climate has being changing for millions of years.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121092270#Comment_121092270

And here we go again, wealth of scientific research finding humans are responsible for the climate change we're experiencing so I'm inclined to go with that.

kippy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121082021#Comment_121082021

This is it.

The first few responses to the OP essentially shooting the messenger.

She and many who deliver this message, are right.

There really isn't though being done fast enough to move away from fossil fuels, were it not for the Ukraine, Russia crisis I doubt there would be any move towards moving away from gas.

It's is up to governments to lead the way but I don't believe those that elect governments actually believe that the climate crisis is real otherwise governments would be doing more, hence the requirement to repeat the message.

kippy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121085522#Comment_121085522

Man made climate change is a scam or international politics is a scam?

jmcc

So, a politician who hadn't the decency to finish the presidential term to which she was elected before running off to a job in the UN and who probably has the historical carbon footprint of a small country lectures people about climate change and fossil fuel? She is as much part of the problem as the fossil fuel companies.

A major part of the problem is too many people in areas of the planet where the available agricultural resources and local climate cannot support the population. A warming climate often increases the risk for such populations due to drought and famine.

Robinson and her ilk make money from this "climate justice" bullsh*t without doing anything to solve the underlying problems. They all seem to have "foundations" of some sort or other to which the gullible can donate. Useful idiots in the media then give her coverage thinking that they too are helping with "climate justice".

Robinson has zero credibility!

Regards...jmcc

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121092375#Comment_121092375

Its legitimate to question the messenger if the messengers actions indicate that they don’t believe the message themselves. She wants others to do what she would not do herself. Her message may be right but her expression of it appears to be that of a narcissistic attention seeker rather than someone who really believes it. She is damaging that cause with her hypocrisy.