Boo baskets

[Clitheroekid]

In case you haven't heard of them - and I hadn't until today - it's the latest TikTok craze, and involves buying a basket of assorted cr@p for your (hideous phrase) `loved one', so as to demonstrate your eternal affection for them on Halloween.

I visited TikTok to see what it was all about. If you've never done so it's like some sort of parallel universe, apparently populated by rather backward children, many masquerading as adults.

This is a selection of their videos on the subject - https://www.tiktok.com/search?q=boo%20b ... 8693706073

At first glance I just thought it was a really stupid idea for really stupid people. But on reflection it's this sort of mentality, which appears to be incredibly widespread, that makes the whole rigmarole of net zero a completely pointless exercise.

This is because while the UK and other Western governments solemnly pontificate about how we must all drive electric cars and install heat pumps China, India and many others are increasing their carbon emissions like there's no tomorrow, making our efforts utterly insignificant and irrelevant in the great scheme of things. And one of the reasons they need all this new coal-fired energy is to manufacture the sort of trash that these idiots are filling up their boo baskets with.

So as long as hundreds of millions of people still insist on their right to buy this garbage, and China and chums burn more coal to satisfy that demand, it seems to me that there is really no point in our donning hair shirts at all.

[CliffEdge]

In case you haven't heard of them - and I hadn't until today - it's the latest TikTok craze, and involves buying a basket of assorted cr@p for your (hideous phrase) `loved one', so as to demonstrate your eternal affection for them on Halloween.

I visited TikTok to see what it was all about. If you've never done so it's like some sort of parallel universe, apparently populated by rather backward children, many masquerading as adults.

This is a selection of their videos on the subject - https://www.tiktok.com/search?q=boo%20b ... 8693706073

At first glance I just thought it was a really stupid idea for really stupid people. But on reflection it's this sort of mentality, which appears to be incredibly widespread, that makes the whole rigmarole of net zero a completely pointless exercise.

This is because while the UK and other Western governments solemnly pontificate about how we must all drive electric cars and install heat pumps China, India and many others are increasing their carbon emissions like there's no tomorrow, making our efforts utterly insignificant and irrelevant in the great scheme of things. And one of the reasons they need all this new coal-fired energy is to manufacture the sort of trash that these idiots are filling up their boo baskets with.

So as long as hundreds of millions of people still insist on their right to buy this garbage, and China and chums burn more coal to satisfy that demand, it seems to me that there is really no point in our donning hair shirts at all.

And to manufacture and power their electric cars. Clever devils the Chinese. Ancient culture way ahead of the West in previous times but fell behind because they nnever figured out how to make glass and without glass you were nowhere.

[Tedx]

I visited TikTok to see what it was all about. If you've never done so it's like some sort of parallel universe, apparently populated by rather backward children, many masquerading as adults.

It is the new western economy. Instead of work, we behave like children and video our escapades for 'likes' and, if we get enough likes, we eventually get some money. And then we can advertise to each other relentlessly. It's also ok behave in a totally over the top manner to, say, a goal in a football game or leaving a shop with the latest mobile telephone. It's also ok for adults to play computer games for hours and hours and talk strategy to each other as if their playing 'war' in a school playground. I guess its like men discussing football to the nth degree in a pub. Maybe nothing changes.

There's a family on youtube who make money by 'pranking' each other all day and every day and their fans love it. Millions of views....yet no one mentions the camaraman in the room. The person who is being pranked just has to know something is coming because there is a 3rd person in the room filming it. Yet the masses lap it up. It's almost an alternative reality.

Maybe it is. Maybe we're the ones who are a bit daft worrying about [expletive deleted] and working all day.

[UncleEbenezer]

I visited TikTok to see what it was all about. If you've never done so it's like some sort of parallel universe, apparently populated by rather backward children, many masquerading as adults.

It is the new western economy. Instead of work, we behave like children and video our escapades for 'likes' and, if we get enough likes, we eventually get some money.

That sounds like democratisation of "reality TV". Which is in turn a successor to the bizarre idea that you can make a living kicking a ball around a field, 'cos someone will willingly pay to put it on telly. Which is in turn a mass-media successor to making a living - usually much more meagre - as an entertainer in pre-telly times. Nowt new.

But to have found this "boo box" thing (no, I'd never heard of it before seeing it here) suggests someone has been down a niche rabbit hole, and perhaps leapt to conclusions that happen to fit his world view.

[Clitheroekid]

But to have found this "boo box" thing (no, I'd never heard of it before seeing it here) suggests someone has been down a niche rabbit hole, and perhaps leapt to conclusions that happen to fit his world view.

So I assume that my conclusions don't coincide with your own `world view'?

I'd be genuinely interested to know whether you see nothing wrong with the sort of consumer behaviour exhibited in these videos. If so, you're almost certainly in the majority - it would certainly appear to be the case, judging by the apparently unlimited amount of tat that's sold.

I always think it's ironically prophetic that Chinese ships used to be called junks, and that now they're called ships but are actually full of junk.

[UncleEbenezer]

But to have found this "boo box" thing (no, I'd never heard of it before seeing it here) suggests someone has been down a niche rabbit hole, and perhaps leapt to conclusions that happen to fit his world view.

So I assume that my conclusions don't coincide with your own `world view'?

I'd be genuinely interested to know whether you see nothing wrong with the sort of consumer behaviour exhibited in these videos. If so, you're almost certainly in the majority - it would certainly appear to be the case, judging by the apparently unlimited amount of tat that's sold.

I always think it's ironically prophetic that Chinese ships used to be called junks, and that now they're called ships but are actually full of junk.

The "China and India" comment got rather under my skin. It smells of the selfish "pointless doing anything because my personal impact is insignificant" put by a few on lemonfool and more elsewhere. I didn't expect it of you, and on a second reading it's not quite what you said.

It would be superfluous to point out that China is developing and deploying clean tech much faster than us. Or the mendacity of our government's story and promises on decarbonisation.

[servodude]

So I assume that my conclusions don't coincide with your own `world view'?

I'd be genuinely interested to know whether you see nothing wrong with the sort of consumer behaviour exhibited in these videos. If so, you're almost certainly in the majority - it would certainly appear to be the case, judging by the apparently unlimited amount of tat that's sold.

I always think it's ironically prophetic that Chinese ships used to be called junks, and that now they're called ships but are actually full of junk.

The "China and India" comment got rather under my skin. It smells of the selfish "pointless doing anything because my personal impact is insignificant" put by a few on lemonfool and more elsewhere. I didn't expect it of you, and on a second reading it's not quite what you said.

It would be superfluous to point out that China is developing and deploying clean tech much faster than us. Or the mendacity of our government's story and promises on decarbonisation.

I don't know if it is that superfluous - it is a point that is very often ignored for convenience.

Another other one often missed is that claiming to have decarbonised while one has actually just shifted the problem (and production of tat) to a different part of the globe seems a mite disingenuous - especially if one then chooses to point fingers at them by way of justification for inactivity ("why should I do anything... those folk making all my stuff are the real polluters!")

[UncleEbenezer]

The "China and India" comment got rather under my skin. It smells of the selfish "pointless doing anything because my personal impact is insignificant" put by a few on lemonfool and more elsewhere. I didn't expect it of you, and on a second reading it's not quite what you said.

It would be superfluous to point out that China is developing and deploying clean tech much faster than us. Or the mendacity of our government's story and promises on decarbonisation.

I don't know if it is that superfluous - it is a point that is very often ignored for convenience.

Another other one often missed is that claiming to have decarbonised while one has actually just shifted the problem (and production of tat) to a different part of the globe seems a mite disingenuous - especially if one then chooses to point fingers at them by way of justification for inactivity ("why should I do anything... those folk making all my stuff are the real polluters!")

Tim Harford (of More-Or-Less fame, and aka Undercover Economist) has a nice metaphor for UK decarbonisation claims. He does a park run, and points out that by the measure favoured by our government and most of the meeja, he (Harford) is a greater runner than Mo Farah. Harford's running, like UK emissions, has improved a lot more than Farah's running or France's emissions, but remains a long, long way behind.

[Lootman]

I don't know if it is that superfluous - it is a point that is very often ignored for convenience.

Another other one often missed is that claiming to have decarbonised while one has actually just shifted the problem (and production of tat) to a different part of the globe seems a mite disingenuous - especially if one then chooses to point fingers at them by way of justification for inactivity ("why should I do anything... those folk making all my stuff are the real polluters!")

Tim Harford (of More-Or-Less fame, and aka Undercover Economist) has a nice metaphor for UK decarbonisation claims. He does a park run, and points out that by the measure favoured by our government and most of the meeja, he (Harford) is a greater runner than Mo Farah. Harford's running, like UK emissions, has improved a lot more than Farah's running or France's emissions, but remains a long, long way behind.

But isn't that always the problem with picking a method of measuring something? That behaviour then changes from doing the right thing to meeting the desired metric? Give someone a bonus or trophy for scoring above X and they will find a way of scoring above X. The metric takes on a life of its own and the underlying objective gets obscured.

And what else would you have the UK do, other than pollute or emit less? It is like we cannot win: either we are burning more fuel or we are somehow fiddling the numbers just to look good. Since we cannot control what others do, all we can do is look after our own house.

[UncleEbenezer]

Tim Harford (of More-Or-Less fame, and aka Undercover Economist) has a nice metaphor for UK decarbonisation claims. He does a park run, and points out that by the measure favoured by our government and most of the meeja, he (Harford) is a greater runner than Mo Farah. Harford's running, like UK emissions, has improved a lot more than Farah's running or France's emissions, but remains a long, long way behind.

But isn't that always the problem with picking a method of measuring something?

Erm, don't get me started on measures. Once upon a time, better measures were the most interesting (and I think productive) area of my postdoc research. But on a very superficial level, emissions per person would in principle be a more honest measure than to cherry-pick a date and boast about reductions since then. And that's without touching on a lot of double-counting and sometimes worse in deriving our figures.

And what else would you have the UK do, other than pollute or emit less? It is like we cannot win: either we are burning more fuel or we are somehow fiddling the numbers just to look good. Since we cannot control what others do, all we can do is look after our own house.

Agreed. Well, almost: Boris did something else which Rishi has now worse-than reversed, by legislating those targets that sent a signal to the rest of the world. Shame none of them is doing as good a job as John Major set in progress before Brown stopped and Osborne reversed it.

[Clitheroekid]

The "China and India" comment got rather under my skin. It smells of the selfish "pointless doing anything because my personal impact is insignificant" put by a few on lemonfool and more elsewhere. I didn't expect it of you, and on a second reading it's not quite what you said.

It would be superfluous to point out that China is developing and deploying clean tech much faster than us. Or the mendacity of our government's story and promises on decarbonisation.

Whilst I accept that China is rapidly accelerating its low carbon energy generation it's still building two new coal-fired power stations a week - https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ch ... rd-levels/

And in absolute terms its emissions are continuing to soar - https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

But India is a far worse offender when it comes to coal. It's actually planning to massively increase its coal production between now and 2030 - https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... GTUK_email

But I completely accept the argument that by outsourcing manufacturing to China the West has simply exported its carbon emissions, so has no right at all to complain.

It seems to me that the basic problem is not the fact of the emissions but the reason for them. And the reason for them is the apparently infinite propensity of the human race to consume stuff. Where the demand exists someone will supply it, as drug dealers have discovered to their benefit.

So it's not the energy companies who are primarily to blame for global warming; it's the people who buy the trash that all that energy is used to manufacture. On which note, allow me to introduce you to the joys of Temu - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/ ... s-temu-app

If we were really serious about doing something we should be attacking this sort of consumption, perhaps with a `tat tax' of, say, 1,000%. Would anyone really be any worse off if it killed the trade?

Whatever measures the UK takes against this global background are therefore more or less irrelevant. We're not so much rearranging the deckchairs on the TItanic as giving them a gentle dusting off.

[stevensfo]

The "China and India" comment got rather under my skin. It smells of the selfish "pointless doing anything because my personal impact is insignificant" put by a few on lemonfool and more elsewhere. I didn't expect it of you, and on a second reading it's not quite what you said.

It would be superfluous to point out that China is developing and deploying clean tech much faster than us. Or the mendacity of our government's story and promises on decarbonisation.

Whilst I accept that China is rapidly accelerating its low carbon energy generation it's still building two new coal-fired power stations a week - https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ch ... rd-levels/

And in absolute terms its emissions are continuing to soar - https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

But India is a far worse offender when it comes to coal. It's actually planning to massively increase its coal production between now and 2030 - https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... GTUK_email

But I completely accept the argument that by outsourcing manufacturing to China the West has simply exported its carbon emissions, so has no right at all to complain.

It seems to me that the basic problem is not the fact of the emissions but the reason for them. And the reason for them is the apparently infinite propensity of the human race to consume stuff. Where the demand exists someone will supply it, as drug dealers have discovered to their benefit.

So it's not the energy companies who are primarily to blame for global warming; it's the people who buy the trash that all that energy is used to manufacture. On which note, allow me to introduce you to the joys of Temu - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/ ... s-temu-app

If we were really serious about doing something we should be attacking this sort of consumption, perhaps with a `tat tax' of, say, 1,000%. Would anyone really be any worse off if it killed the trade?

Whatever measures the UK takes against this global background are therefore more or less irrelevant. We're not so much rearranging the deckchairs on the TItanic as giving them a gentle dusting off.

So it's not the energy companies who are primarily to blame for global warming; it's the people who buy the trash that all that energy is used to manufacture. On which note, allow me to introduce you to the joys of Temu - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/ ... s-temu-app
If we were really serious about doing something we should be attacking this sort of consumption, perhaps with a `tat tax' of, say, 1,000%. Would anyone really be any worse off if it killed the trade?

But that is so un-British!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2trDNMkA2aI


Steve