this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
1500 points (96.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

5863 readers
3021 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Jeremy Clarkson: Just been for a walk round the farm and I'm a bit alarmed by how few butterflies there are.

Something is afoot.

Danny Wallace: Diesel-smelling Top Gear host who threatened climate protestors misses butterflies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] polygon6121@lemmy.world 363 points 4 months ago (16 children)

To be fair. His farming ventures have moved his opinion on climate in a positive direction. People can change their mind and that is a good thing. I would even go as far as calling it a very good sign that even a person as stubborn as the great ape Clarkson can change their opinion on this matter is absolutely fantastic. Good on Clarkson! And fuck the other guy for shoving up the past in his face when he is trying to be better.

[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 151 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

To be fair. His farming ventures have moved his opinion on climate in a positive direction.

But have they? His insistence at this point is that he doesn't have to do anything, or change anything, science will "solve the issue". Nothing better than someone who thinks any mess they make can be cleaned up by someone else so why bother trying to make any changes that makes your life slightly less convenient?

He added: ‘I won’t drive a Tesla. I’ve got probably 10 cars, all with V8 engines. I don’t think electric cars solve anything. Science is going to be needed here, not politics. Science will solve it eventually. Always does.’

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/29/problem-jeremy-clarksons-global-warming-joke-20736068/

To be fair. His farming ventures have moved his opinion on climate in a positive direction.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 124 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

Uhh isn’t progressing to electric cars… science progressing to help solve the issue? What a strange train of thoughts.

[–] MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world 68 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I know someone who has a similar outlook (climate change is real but science will solve it, so we don't need to change anything). Basically anything science produces toward that end they will move the goalpost and say it's not worth pursuing because science will fix it.

It is essentially their way of making climate change denialism seem reasonable and open-minded. I think if somebody came up with a miracle device to magically reverse everything, they'd complain it's too costly at any price.

[–] sudo42@lemmy.world 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is essentially their way of making climate change denialism seem reasonable and open-minded. I think if somebody came up with a miracle device to magically reverse everything, they’d complain it’s too costly at any price.

Yup. When/if we do find a way to dial back global warming, billionaires will be screaming for us to not use it because they've already found ways to make money off of people dying.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

See: American healthcare system.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Uhh isn’t progressing to electric cars… science progressing to help solve the issue?

No. It isn't.

It's capitalism shifting their private transport scam from an energy source that they exploited the living crap out off to another that they haven't mismanaged into the ground yet.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What he thinks will happen is Tony Stark inventing a... Thing. And this Thing will make the climate better by doing... Stuff. And no one will have to change or do anything or even think about it because this Thing will do the Stuff for them.

[–] Naz@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

Hello I'm "the Tony Stark" and I'm totally out of my element and overwhelmed

This is getting solved by the entire human species, not one dude

Would be cool if that were the case

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

No, its more like corporations moving to capitalize on peoples desire to affect change.

They help, but they don't solve the issue. They're a bandage for a gaping chest wound. It'll staunch the bleeding... a little, but it won't heal it.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Substitute religion out for technology and this is still meaningful

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 47 points 4 months ago (2 children)

He's right about electric cars not solving anything but wrong about politics not solving it. Science has already provided the solutions like over a decade ago but no one is willing to implement it.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I'm really tired of this pervasive fantasy where people actually think we can get rid of all cars and bring public transport to the masses in the space of a year.

We live in a car centric society and changing that is going to take a decade at the minimum.

EVs are our best solutions currently, we don't have time to wait for trains or hydrogen. We should absolutely start trying to phase cars out completely but that doesn't negate the fact that saying "EVs don't help" is essentially being an oil barons mouthpiece.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

changing that is going to take a decade at the minimum.

And that’s way too optimistic. Given the life expectancy of modern autos, the “quick” option of EVs will be a couple decades or more.

Building car-centric towns and cities has taken most of a century of constant growth. Now those cities exist and we no longer have the growth so rebuilding them is a much bigger job. We’re talking many decades, likely a century or more. In the meantime we can’t afford to be stuck with ICE.

Although maybe you’re not from the US so the problem is not as severe. Here in Massachusetts we also have the advantage of so many towns and cities being built out before cars. We’re “behind” on being car-centric so hopefully can fix that trend more quickly

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

changing that is going to take a decade at the minimum.

And that’s way too optimistic

Best time to start was years ago, second best time to start is now. Maybe we can start by voting in favor of the next public transit initiative in our respective local elections.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Of course, but the point is that EVs are a useful step, even if transit is the goal and start now.

Also that it’s going to take quite a while. Yes, we need to plant that tree ASAP and we need to take really good care of it and we need to appreciate shade as we get it ….. but also realize it won’t be full grown until long after we’re gone.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

(Hydrogen is very much not a solution. It takes way too much energy to make and it's very dangerous to store.)

[–] sudo42@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Science is pushing electric cars for a reason. Clarkson's an idiot.

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No it's capitalism and the car industry that wants to continue selling cars that are pushing for EVs.

Cars in general are bad for the environment and the people around them. EVs are a bit better than internal combustion, but it's not a miracle.

EVs still emit tons of rubber particles because of tire shedding, they are heavier and require more energy to move around, they still require vast amounts of paved parking and roads, and they can still crush pedestrians and animals.

If you have to have a car, it should be an EV if possible, but it would be better to reduce the amount of cars in cities and around us.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So we agree the man with 10 v8 engine cars should move to EVs or public transit rather than having 10 cars? Because he's saying fuck that.

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

He's not using all 10 at the same time every day for a multi-hours commute. In a way he's right. In his country, that means not cancelling HS2. It's not his personal fault. And him changing a car to EV won't change much, aside from putting one more car on the market.

Again, my point is, it's not science that is pushing EVs, it's capitalism. Buy an EV!1!!! Buy buy buy!11! ThEy ArE GoNnA SaVe ThE PlAnEt!

No need for policy changes. All we need to do collectively is ban plastic straws, drive EVs, recycle, and those that are not doing this will be blamed!

https://www.abc27.com/news/environment/keeping-old-cars-longer-can-help-the-environment-more-than-buying-new-electric-cars-study-finds/

https://www.cargurus.co.uk/Cars/articles/whats-greener-used-car-or-new-ev

https://mycarheaven.com/2023/07/keeping-your-old-petrol-car-may-be-better-than-buying-an-ev/

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Myth. https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/mythbusting-world-evs-better-buy-new-or-keep-your-old-car

But what if your existing petrol or diesel car is perfectly satisfactory? Obviously if you cause one less vehicle – of any kind – to be manufactured, you’re saving CO2 in the short term. But if you drive a lot of miles or your car is thirsty, then sell it to someone who drives less. Getting an EV would after a very few years move you into credit. If it’s efficient and you drive little, probably hold on to it for a while.

In most areas of life, the greenest thing is simply to buy less stuff and keep it for longer. But with ICE cars, because they emit so much CO2 in use, it’s not always so simple.

HS2 wasn't going to fix much. Shave 20 minutes off a multi-hour journey. There's already fast, frequent rail between London and the other major cities in HS2. It's just very expensive and HS2 wasn't going to fix that either. What would help is good rail between the North West and Yorkshire, where it's absurdly bad and has been for a long time.

Now if you could get rail or light rail out to my town or up the bus frequency and speed to match light rail, I'd gladly give up running my (second hand) electric car, but I need it to be so much cheaper, because the electric car costs me £4 a week to run if I don't use the light railway (plus £3 a day parking), and light rail costs me £6 a day if I park and ride. (I don't miss my petrol car at all. It cost me £20 a week to run, plus the parking, and it really was no fun to drive at all.)

[–] currycourier@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

If you have 10 cars and buy an 11th thats electric you're not really solving anything. The problem is overconsumption moreso than method of propulsion, the bulk of a car's lifetime emissions are a result of manufacturing rather than daily use.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 29 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don’t think electric cars solve anything. Science is going to be needed here, not politics. Science will solve it eventually. Always does.

[–] Jimbo@yiffit.net 4 points 4 months ago

always does

Yeah someone clearly doesn't know history loll

As much as I like Top Gear, I'm embarrassed to share a name with this guy. Why does every public personality named Jeremy have to be a cunt? Maybe it's just British TV personalities.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago

To be fair, it's corporations doing the vast majority of the polluting.

Where I live, electric cars are essentially a net-zero because most of our electricity comes from coal and gas.

Does that absolve any individual from doing what they can? Absolutely not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 80 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

If he’s changed wouldn’t he know what the issue was? It’s a little worrying that he hasn’t made the connection if that’s the case.

I don’t see this as a change of opinion, just a severe lack of understanding as a whole.

[–] polygon6121@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You are probably right. Or maybe he just wants to create a discussion

[–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, about his show, and what a good guy he now is.. And look, it worked!

[–] essell@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is it possible a tweet doesn't contain the entirety of his thoughts on the subject?

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Plenty more characters available, could have made himself not seem so clueless or oblivious to what he’s done and did or even for the future.

Climate change is serious, would work instead of something is affoot for example.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Change is rarely immediate or miraculous. He's moved a little, hopefully he continues on that path.

I won't hold my breath, but I won't refuse to accept that change has occurred. Slight though it may be.

[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s probably just promo for the next season of clarksons farm where he’ll plant a bunch of milkweed in the field that had the poor mustard harvest last year.

Jeremy does at least try to be somewhat environmentally conscious with his farm. Last season he was making a big focus on responsible hunting, renewable farming (less chemicals), using non-arable spaces for small scale harvesting (forest berries and herbs as well as putting hogs in the forest instead of a field), and utilizing the most of the space we have(growing mushrooms in an abandoned bomb bunker instead of building something new)

[–] ReadyUser31@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I feel like this is the sort of conservation that conservatives should be all about. Rather than conserving wealth.

[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Idk, to me it seems like he's changed his opinion on the cause but not yet realized the effects

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 69 points 4 months ago (1 children)

To be fair. His farming ventures have moved his opinion on climate in a positive direction.

Standard issue conservative. They only complain when it begins to affect them. If he didn't have a farm, would he still have moved in that direction?

Nope.

A common characteristic of conservatives is a lack of empathy.

Am I happy he did? Yes.

Am I holding my breath that he'll actually vote for change? Nope.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago (1 children)

meh. he profited personally off of lambasting the very scientists who were trying to warn us. he literally made his fortune off of glorifying petrol guzzling shitwagons.

fuck clarkson. he's a fucking toolbag who's just now - as the world is on fire- is slowly starting to wake to the crisis he personally helped fuel.

[–] DaleGribble88@programming.dev 29 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Someone missed the episode(s?) where he raced the public transit system and lost. Or raced other drivers in noticeably slower cars in highly congested traffic and lost, or raced a bicycle and lost.

A semi-common through-line of the show was that cars are, and should be, for fun. (Full disclosure this was often pushed most heavily by James May, but I feel like Jeremy could have said no at any point.) They often lambasted average and everyday use cars.

I loved my old sports car! It was 2 seats and too much power! I had to get rid of it because it was unreliable and unsafe for traveling with my first kid. Neither would have been an issue with good public transit infrastructure in place.

Cars are not the problem, but car dependency absolutely is.

(I don't totally feel this way and do think cars a major contributing factor in some problems, like pollution of microplastic particulates from aggressive driving, but that isn't as quippy.)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago

His farming ventures have moved his opinion on climate in a positive direction.

It was effecting his vacationing. Hyper fucking privileged.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh yes, great. When it is too late suddenly the fucks who are responsible for this mess have a change of heart and deserve sympathies? Give me a break...

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

they'll shout "why didn't anyone warn us!" while cashing their residual checks from the show that lampooned climate change and encouraged millions to buy gas guzzling shitwagons.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

I think it was the first episode of the first season where one of his neighbors bitched him out over climate change. Really satisfying to see.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No. You don't get to "give back to the community" after shitting in the mental water reservoir for decades.

load more comments (8 replies)