• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    To be clelar for anyone just skimming the article… It’s UK Farmers.

    I guess they could have had more support if they didn’t Brexit…

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Do you think the UK sometimes sits up late at night with a bottle of whisky and stalks the EU on social media?

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I wish people would stop going on about Brexit. It was what the people wanted. Literally every single brown “”“person”“” has left the country and we don’t have any EU overlords shoving their rules down our throats. Every other aspect of our life bring worse and facing food shortages is a small price to pay

  • ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Mr Stanley said farms were facing “an existential moment” because of the changing climate, which could put many out of business, reducing UK food security.

    “The problem that we’re facing is that weather is becoming so extreme that it is overwhelming our ability as farmers to continue to grow crops at all in some places,” he said.

    Yes, but let’s not lose sight of what’s really important, by sacrificing the planet we’ve successfully prevented a few billionaires from having to sell their yachts.

    • DrCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      While I’m not saying the farmer quote shares this belief but it’s hard to take when there have been so many “farmers protests” about changes to subsidies linked to reducing emissions and planting more trees

      • Granbo's Holy Hotrod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        There was a Climate Town video that explains how the US tried to institute strict emissions standards in the mid to late 90s. Exceptions were given to all work trucks because it would make them too expensive for small farms. This led to car companies leaning into that form factor, and now the Yank Tanks are ubiquitous and infecting the rest of the world.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Can you provide evidence that billionaires yachts cause more environmental damage than say average people using their car.

      I’d be really interested to to how billionaires are solely responsible for this mess.

      Edit: Congratulations everyone. The oil and gas industries do not want individuals to feel responsible for climate change and want them to push the blame elsewhere so everyone keeps consuming. You’re doing what they want. This is bang out of the oil and gas playbook.

        • Wanderer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          by sacrificing the planet we’ve successfully prevented a few billionaires from having to sell their yachts

          They are directly saying that we sacrificed the planet to allow billionaires to have yachts. It’s right there.

          There is a huge danger in this world that nobody is taking action for the damage they are doing to the world. If billionaires have done no damage to the world then what? Everything is fine and we can go on living the way we are? No. The world’s fucked because of everyday people.

          The average person needs to change and consume less and pollute less. Blaming billionaires for everything and acting like the everyday person is innocent is exactly what the billionaires want because then you just consume the stuff they sell and they get richer and the world gets worse.

          The only way to fix this world is if everyone consumes less. Deflecting isn’t helping the planet.

      • foofy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        You know, I don’t disagree with your ultimate point. But if you look through this comment chain you should recognize that the way you chose to make it is:

        1. Needlessly antagonistic, and (therefore)
        2. Not very effective

        If you wanted to convince anyone or provoke interesting discussion I think you failed.

        In the future, you should just make your argument/statement instead of asking “clever” bad faith questions.