Farmers warn of first year without harvest since Second World War

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...

Do you think the UK sometimes sits up late at night with a bottle of whisky and stalks the EU on social media?
- Pretty embarrassing when they accidentally like a 200 year old post with bikini pics.
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
- "what the people wanted"? I'm going to assume you dropped the /s tag since the morning AFTER the vote the biggest Google searches in the UK were "What is the EU?" and "What is Brexit?"
  https://www.webfx.com/blog/seo/7-huge-points-google-trends-tells-us-about-brexit/

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.

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
- 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.
- I think many farmers are being played for fools. They are being astroturfed by big agri businesses run by corporate billionaires.
- Yeah we just had a huge protest here in France, except for a smaller union they all agreed that the pesky ecologists were to blame for their problems. And the government was more than willing to agree with them, better kill our remaining farming land for short term profit than reign in their buddies at Nestlé and Danone.
I'm with you, but it's not even about having to sell their yachts. These leeches have so much goddamn money that they could lose most of it with no materiel impact to their lifestyle. They just horde it out of a combination of addiction and lust for power.
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.
- First google result. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/jeff-bezos-superyacht-produces-7k-tons-of-carbon-emissions-per-year-report/ar-AA1kvFFn
- That is soooo far from the point that it's not even funny. Nice straw man though
- Yachts, on average, burn 20-50 gallons of fuel an hour.
  Super yachts and mega yachts have fuel capacities of 10k-50k gallons and burn 100-500 gallons per hour.
  Before I had a PEV, I would run through about 10 gallons a week. I had that car for 10 years, meaning I used less fuel in a decade than a mega yacht does in a day. I traveled around 130k miles on around 5200 gallons of gas and that car had pretty shit MPG of 25.
  Cruising speed for yachts varies quite a bit, but assuming a speed of 50 mph means a super yacht gets between 0.5 and 0.1 MPG.
  Then there's the private jets, the 30k sq ft houses, and the fact that 80% of emissions can be tracked back to 57 atate-owned or private companies...none of which are owned or run by the poor or working class. All of that is only considering the western world and it's definition of poor, the poorest 100 nations only account for around 3% of total emissions...so yes, its the rich people.
- 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:
  Needlessly antagonistic, and (therefore)
  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.
- This will not attract a female sea lion, you have to find another way to show your mating prowess.
- Well yeah, that doesn't even require "proper" evidence. The physical structure alone contains more materials than a car.
- Your really out of line here. I'm not the average person, but I'll compare with myself. Taylor Swift consumed more than 16000 gallons a month (or more than 70000 litres) for at least the first 7 months of 2022, and that's after selling one of her jets due to public exposure. Compare to me, I work from home and made 3000 kms in 2 years, for an average of 23 litres a month. So she consumed 3000 times more than me. Even if the average person does 10 times my mileage, she would still be 300x the average.