Mary Robinson lambasts Fossil Fuel Industry

Actually it has never been less needed to fly places to gain such a platform.

By that measure, surely Ireland (responsible for less than 0.1% of global CO2) could advocate for bigger countries to reduce their emissions, but not actually wreak economic self destruction reducing our own insignificant emissions?

Yeah that seems fair 🙄

It's very deliberate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

It’s not strange to judge someone’s actions over their words, in fact the opposite is strange.

With regards to the levels you mention, she is at the bottom level, she is taking the mick, including flying out to conduct a publicity stunt with a woman abusing dictator.

Carbon? Carbon what?

People know exactly what is happening but they don't need well-heeled hypocrits like Robinson to tell them that they need to buy electric cars and install solar panels on their roof when they simply can't afford all that.

oh I know. Rules, taxes and dictats for the peasants and not me

She has said citizens should not be taking unnecessary flights, while she flies to play fake happy families with a dictator.

If she focused her advice towards governments only that would be more credible.