UK Nature and Environment

666 readers

21 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our spring banner is a shot of Walberswick marshes, Suffolk by GreyShuck.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

GreyShuck@feddit.uk

Kim@feddit.uk

203

Met Office should name storms after fossil fuel companies, say campaigners (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 days ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/nature@feddit.uk

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Met Office should name storms after fossil fuel companies, campaigners have said, after the weather forecasting service opened a storm naming competition.

Climate campaigners have recommended the Met Office names its storms after various oil and gas corporations to remind the public of the link between burning fossil fuels and extreme weather.

They are hoping to spark a craze similar to “Boaty McBoatface”, when in 2016 the National Environment Research Council opened a competition to name a £200m polar research ship. Nationwide hilarity ensued when the public voted Boaty McBoatface as the top choice for the ship’s name. However, the name was not chosen by the government, who opted to name it the Sir David Attenborough instead.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] florge@feddit.uk 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Naming them after the execs would be better.

[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think corporations are better. Nobody connects execs with corporations and if someone does and it starts costing them money it's a minor imconvenience they can deal with.

But if you target their company name you target their brand and that's going to be more than a slight inconvenience. Rebranding is crazy expensive and there's no rubbing off that stink without rebranding.

I imagine we're going to get more storms than we have oil companies so eventually we can go after the execs as well.

[–] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I feel like instead of naming the storm after ExxonMobil, it would play better if the storm was brought to you by ExxonMobil

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah somehow they would spin this as advertising and find a way to benefit from it. So maybe naming them after execs is better. But like with Boaty McBoatface, why bother asking the public what they think if you’re just going to do what you want anyway?

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 12 points 3 days ago

Better yet fossil fuel company ceos and major shareholders

[–] blimthepixie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They're hoping to spark a craze similar to the ship so they can just ignore the most popular vote?

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think the point is to try to get people talking about it in the way people did about the Boaty McBoatface thing.

[–] Psaldorn@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"BP fucked my house/coast/environment", it's not not true..

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 3 days ago

*and your wife