Piers Morgan is always trolling, that's why he has such a big audience :)

Honestly though, there's nothing new in this thread and there is no actual discussion happening, just people sharing supposedly woke-bashing videos about Jordan Peterson and Piers Morgan, which the wokes don't care about and the anti-wokes already know about.

Please post interesting things on topics of substance, rather than US American and British culture war stuff on how trans people and wokes are ruining civilisation, ok? Let's please stick to topics that are at least vaguely legal and India.

Please share videos from genuine sources, not YouTube channels were every video has things in capital letters along the lines of xyz OWNS / DESTROYS / EXPOSES zyx. Hyperbole and shouting online is not conducive to an actual bona fide discussion, and furthermore, anyone who actually talks like that is a troll or YouTuber, or both, trying to whore for clicks.

Please feel free to explain again if any of his arguments have not been addressed, but his climate change points were all variations of the above that have been made by the oil lobby and lots of western governments for decades (until relatively recently), and are fairly short sighted and easy to argue against with science or economics, yet again, please explain what this has to do with wokeness?

First of all, what has British engineering invented or built recently other than at most, overpriced vacuum cleaners (slight sarcasm, but only ever so slight)? That Britain will invent magic anti-global warming beans and tech is similar wishful thinking that got Brexiteers into the messes they got themselves into. And if his point is that the UK is irrelevant, because it only contributes 2% of emissions (despite housing much less than 1% of the world population), sure, the UK is irrelevant in many ways. But the UK is not irrelevant that if it wants to have its cake and eat it too on cutting emissions, because lots of other countries will then be right to say: look, the UK doesn't give a shit and is hoping for magic beans, why should we?

In terms of tech, the cheap solar and renewables power revolution has unfortunately mostly been coming out of China, if anything, and maybe India too if it plays its cards right.

But the reality is that if the entire world continues living as it currently is, and if rich countries abdicate their responsibility for the current emissions as well as future emissions, there is zero hope and scope to encourage developing economies to not follow the same path and shorcuts the West took to where it is now.

And places such as the US and Europe could have already been much much closer to carbon neutrality for years, if they'd really tried instead of investing in and supporting fossil fuel for all these years and by having been less intentionally wasteful.

Again though, this is a somewhat interesting discussion but it still has nothing to do with wokeness, does it?

First of all, he did not even say that developed countries do not have the responsibility to work towards the problems posed by climate change. He said that Britain in particular contributes little in absolute terms (2% per his figures, if he is incorrect on that feel free to call him out on that ofc) and therefore a reduction based strategy for the country would have a negligible effect on averting climate change. Instead, he stated that the way in which Britain can contribute to the effort is mainly through aiding technological advancement, which would be true even if you were to adopt a primarily reduction based strategy since the development of clean energy affordably and at a large scale is really the only way in which greenhouse gas emissions may be reduced. At no point did he even prescribe any of this as the standard for developed countries generally nor did he at any point state developing countries ought to develop in the exact same manner as developed countries did. After all, the technological advances that would emanate largely from developed countries like Britain can be used even by developing countries to their advantage, in order to grow sustainably. Frankly, I think that you are simply interpreting every word of his in the most uncharitable manner possible, ignoring its natural meaning, and between the two of you, it is you who is coming across as whiny and not him.

Fair enough, maybe only half-listened to his rant and oversimplified his points that he had oversimplified into absurdity and gone off-topic, but fundamentally it sounded like he was espousing a techno-utopian wishful thinking argument of 'we'll fix it later through future magic bean technology solutions', which don't exist yet and are definitely going to cost especially developing countries and the world much more than any current fixes would cost, and may literally be impossible in potential doomsday scenarios once temperatures have risen by 1.5+ degrees (even if Elon Musk & Co manage to emigrate to Mars).

He also made an argument along the lines of 'poor countries contribute more on absolute terms than the UK', therefore the UK has no responsibility to cut its emissions, which is problematic and 1) ignores that it was the UK, US and countries like that, as well as the globalised economy built by those countries, that are nearly entirely to blame for the damage already done so far to the atmosphere and the path the world is on, and 2) ignores the reality of global treaties requiring everyone to buy in rather than the global North continuing to screw the rest of the world forever.

Regarding your point that 'poor countries contribute to most of the carbon footprint on absolute terms', that is not even half the story: developed economies still contribute a massively outsize amount per capita, and the problem is that if developing economies seek to emulate exactly the sort of wastefulness and economic models that developed economies have been indulging in or effectively forcing them to adopt in order to compete in a global market, even a 1.5 degrees rise in temperatures is unachievable.

But really, all of the above has very little to do with wokeness but mostly with denying current science or realities, or at least lobbying against it similarly to how energy and other companies have been doing when intentionally lying and lobbying about the crisis.

Of course he's free to have his opinions that economic development will magically fix what it broke in the first place, but then he shouldn't cry his 'oh Greta is so mean' tears when he gets called out on it.

Not once did he say that developing countries such as India should take responsibility for cutting down on carbon emissions. What he said was that poor countries contribute to most of the carbon footprint on absolute terms, which is true, and that they should not be made to take the responsibility of climate change precisely because doing so would mean that they'd have to stay poor. Yes, his argument leads to the conclusion that drastic action on climate change is not possible, something he readily admits, but not once did he put any onus on developing countries. Honestly, this was clear as day and I am not sure why you even mentioned climate denialism, given that nothing he said came even close to that.

Other than the fact that this is hosted by a channel called 'triggernometry', which is a good sign it'll be nonsense, I'll save others a watch: this guy is not railing about wokism but effectively denying climate change or rather, saying the only solution to climate change is technology, and that Britain therefore does not need to reduce its carbon emissions but only poor countries with lots of people like India need to cut down.

How do you feel about that?

Also be said, don't judge whether someone is racist or not by what they say, but by their character? Really? How do you do that?

Also, he's right that freedom of speech is important, but should you or a government have the freedom to lie with an intent to cause physical harm to ethnic groups? Or provably lie in order to continue selling fossil fuels, despite being aware it will kill a lot of people in the decades to come and cause trillions of economic damage for future generations? And should social media platforms or academic institutions protect their right to tell such lies? Now that's the real crux of the debate, not getting triggered by woke 'culture', whatever that mean, or climate activists exercising their right to protest, free speech or civil disobedience.

Brilliant!!

Do his views resonate with you? Has he missed the point? Let’s discuss it!

https://youtu.be/JKIOSnKX96E

[mod note: headline fixed to reflect content of speech]