Carbon tax breaks and or 'credits' for people who get sterilised.

Jimmy Garlic

That is a proposal that I have no doubt we will be hearing about in the not too distant future. Already being spoken about as a measure that may be introduced in some countries. How would such an idea be received in Ireland?

Grayson

I doubt that would happen.

I can however see a carbon tax available if you eat someone. Think of it, kill a person and eat them and you've lowered your carbon footprint by 100%

Zaph

Occasionally sterilisations fail and the woman becomes pregnant. What happens in that case? Also what about people who are unable to have children. Would they be eligible for the credits as well?

Grayson wrote: »

I can however see a carbon tax available if you eat someone. Think of it, kill a person and eat them and you've lowered your carbon footprint by 100%

Surely not unless you eat them raw? And who wants to eat a raw person when roasting them would be so much nicer?

I would be in favour of sterilisation for habitual criminals and spongers averse to work.

_Brian

Should be compulsory for anyone on dole for 5 or more years or more than 5 court appearances where they are found guilty.

Cina

It will never work in Ireland or other developed countries. We already all have falling birth rates that aren't keeping up with modern medicine. People are living longer and not enough babies are being born to handle the ageing populations and their monstrous pensions.

Good video here about it, and about how it's actually not as big an issue in developing countries anymore as people seem to think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

kneemos

Population decline is a problem in the developed world.

Atlantic Dawn

An annual cow tax based on the emissions of the cow should be introduced. A cow puts out the same CO2 annually as burning 1000 litres of petrol in an average car.

Jimmy Garlic

_Brian wrote: »

Should be compulsory for anyone on dole for 5 or more years or more than 5 court appearances where they are found guilty.

Anyone who has had more than five foreign holidays could be added to the list too.

jimgoose

Grayson wrote: »

I doubt that would happen.

I can however see a carbon tax available if you eat someone. Think of it, kill a person and eat them and you've lowered your carbon footprint by 100%

Hmm. Imagine the brass you could make with a battlefield nuke?? :cool:

Jimmy Garlic

Cina wrote: »

It will never work in Ireland or other developed countries. We already all have falling birth rates that aren't keeping up with modern medicine. People are living longer and not enough babies are being born to handle the ageing populations and their monstrous pensions.

Good video here about it, and about how it's actually not as big an issue in developing countries anymore as people seem to think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

Euthanasia for old people could be the answer to that.

kneemos

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Euthanasia for old people could be the answer to that.

Oblivious to the fact you'll get old some day.

Jimmy Garlic

Grayson wrote: »

I doubt that would happen.

I can however see a carbon tax available if you eat someone. Think of it, kill a person and eat them and you've lowered your carbon footprint by 100%

I think there actually is a German cannibal that is a member of the Green Party. I think he turned vegetarian.

one world order

If the luciferian worshipping illuminati stopped manipulating the weather through HAARP we wouldn't have the weather extremes around the world and all this nonsense talk about climate change. How about addressing the real cause rather than giving more wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top.

Del2005

kneemos wrote: »

Oblivious to the fact you'll get old some day.

Not if we bring in euthanasia

one world order

one world order wrote: »

If the luciferian worshipping illuminati stopped manipulating the weather through HAARP we wouldn't have the weather extremes around the world and all this nonsense talk about climate change. How about addressing the real cause rather than giving more wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top.

Inhaling chemtrails causes people to believe that Joe Duffy is a bastion of reason.

Jimmy Garlic

kneemos wrote: »

Oblivious to the fact you'll get old some day.

Obviously it wouldn't apply to me when I'm old, my climate action work will ensure my survival.

Varik

The counties that care, arnt the one with the surplus population.

TCM

Deleted User wrote:

I would be in favour of sterilisation for habitual criminals and spongers averse to work.

Just wondering might that include or exclude yourself?

kneemos

Del2005 wrote: »

Not if we bring in euthanasia

Twoshay.

rgodard80a

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

A cow puts out the same CO2 annually as burning 1000 litres of petrol in an average car.

So we should ride a cow to work before we eat it ?
Where do you think we live Leitrim?

Deebles McBeebles

Varik wrote: »

The counties that care, arnt the one with the surplus population.

Unfortunately the climate effects the world as a whole, not just, to quote Trump, "the sh*thole countries".

Much like The Night King, climate change does not care for your borders.

rgodard80a

kneemos wrote: »

Population decline is a problem in the developed world.

Time to ban contraceptives again.

kowloon

Grayson wrote: »

I doubt that would happen.

I can however see a carbon tax available if you eat someone. Think of it, kill a person and eat them and you've lowered your carbon footprint by 100%

Only for the duration of what would be their remaining lifespan. The ideal situation would be to eat babies as old folk have already done the majority of their damage, and the meat would be tough.

Jimmy Garlic

TCM wrote: »

Just wondering might that include or exclude yourself?

George Bernard Shaw advocated for yearly assessment of citizens to deem their worth to society. Those deemed not worthy would be taken aside and humanely euthanised. Important members of society such as politicians and rock stars would of course have to be excluded from assessment.

Jimmy Garlic

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Unfortunately the climate effects the world as a whole, not just, to quote Trump, "the sh*thole countries".

Much like The Night King, climate change does not care for your borders.

Climate chaos and the global climate time bomb will mean doom for those who fail to take climate action seriously. If we are to avoid climate catastrophe we have to become more climate aware going forward.

gozunda

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

An annual cow tax based on the emissions of the cow should be introduced. A cow puts out the same CO2 annually as burning 1000 litres of petrol in an average car.

Ah let's have a yet another go at cows! and agriculture in a thread about reducing one of the most significant problems - human population! And sure why not! - it's what seems to be all the trend these days. Funny that.

Globally as far as emissions go - agriculture falls well behind fossil fuel use and transport.

It remains that energy use (25%) , industry (21%) and transportation (14%) whose emissions are all primarily related to the use of fossil fuels, are each greater than the emissions for all types of agriculture and when those sectors are combined make up some 60% of total carbon emissions.

And yet we are being told again and again by some that agriculture which feeds people is the the main problem - to the exclusion of nearly everything else - wtf?

But we rarely hear about people advocating for additional tax on their fuel for their cars or telling the rest of us that they are never going to fly again or permanently switching off their central heating or working towards reducing the worlds human population.

I wonder why that is?

Jimmy Garlic

gozunda wrote: »

Ah let's have a yet another go at agriculture in a thread about reducing one of the most significant problems - human population! And sure why not! - it's what seems to be all the trend these days. Funny that.

It remains that globally agriculture as far as emissions go - falls well behind fossil fuel use and transport.

But we rarely hear about people advocating for additional tax on their fuel for their cars or telling the rest of us that they are never going to fly again or permanently switching of their central heating.

I wonder why that is?

Access to food means people are more likely to survive longer. Cutting the amount of food available, types of food available with the knock on of making it more expensive will in turn have have a positive effect when reducing the herd. Less food = less farmers and more space for trees.

gozunda

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

More food means people are more likely to survive longer. Cutting the amount of food available, types of food available with the knock on of making it more expensive will have have a positive effect when reducing the herd. Less food = less farmers and more space for trees.

Lol. Nope. Your maths logic don't add up there.
I reckon contraception is probably a better method of reducing population - that and decent education.

People still have to eat - and unlike the daily mound of garbage we are being fed that it's the big bad westerners and just our 'cows' which are are responsible - it remains that developing countries have a very important part to play. For example India has the largest number of cows and bovines on the planet. They also have 75 million dairy farms and are the number one joint exporter of beef in the world. To that let's add that China has the third largest number of bovines after Brazil - but that Brazil then exports most of its beef and Soya to where? Yes China! And more importantly China leads the world in green house gas emissions.

If has been shown that if developing nations' lowered their emissions intensity from 34 to 14 kg CO2e per kg beef (current average of developed nations), we could produce the same amount of beef in the world with a 45% reduction in GHG emissions


https://twitter.com/drsplace/status/1118308541218136064?s=19

Trees are good but tell that to people in developing countries ...

So as said contraception is probably a better method of reducing population - that and decent education and improving the environment through a reduction in emissions of what we do produce globally in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Your Face

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

George Bernard Shaw advocated for yearly assessment of citizens to deem their worth to society. Those deemed not worthy would be taken aside and humanely euthanised. Important members of society such as politicians and rock stars would of course have to be excluded from assessment.

He was very contradictory in his views.

topper75

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

George Bernard Shaw advocated for yearly assessment of citizens to deem their worth to society. Those deemed not worthy would be taken aside and humanely euthanised. Important members of society such as politicians and rock stars would of course have to be excluded from assessment.

So if I understand GBS correctly, 'rock stars' such as Bono and Sting could be invited to demonstrate how to play a Cmdim5 or an E7#9 or some such awkward chord, and if they failed we could justifiably swing a shovel at the back of their heads?

Deebles McBeebles

topper75 wrote: »

So if I understand GBS correctly, 'rock stars' such as Bono and Sting could be invited to demonstrate how to play a Cmdim5 or an E7#9 or some such awkward chord, and if they failed we could justifiably swing a shovel at the back of their heads?

Bono would definitely fail that test.

ToddyDoody

Deleted User wrote: »

I would be in favour of sterilisation for habitual criminals and spongers averse to work.

Ireland is so zen.

Capt'n Midnight

Del2005 wrote: »

Not if we bring in euthanasia

If we get rid of the youth in Asia then there wouldn't be this problem.

This sterilisation proposal reminds me not of Nazi Germany - 'first they came to sterilise the disabled children... then they came for me.' - but of Dr Strangelove's 'astonishingly good idea' to use a computer to select the genes for the future human race in the event of nuclear annihilation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJzF6PD2nM

98q76e12hrflnk

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Anyone who has had more than five foreign holidays could be added to the list too.

So the only people to breed are culchies. Not a bright future awaits

SeanW

Funny, whenever "Climate Change" is discussed these days, it's almost always in the context of the supposed need for some insanely authoritarian wet dream.

Like Alexandra Ocazio Cortez's "Green New Deal" that, among other things, proposes banning all air travel, imposing obscene restrictions on agriculture, spending (in the case of the US "Green New Deal") anything up to $100,000,000,000,000 (that is, 100 trillion) on pointless, unreliable and insanely destructive "renewable" power. Or demolishing every building in the country and rebuilding it with more insulation. Or severe restrictions on people's mobility. Or more taxes. Or as we've seen in this thread, mass sterilisation of populations already in freefall and the wholesale murder of old people.

Meanwhile, things that might actually work like nuclear electricity (which can totally decarbonise a power grid as France has shown us, also Sweden and to a lesser extent, Switzerland.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=FR

These things seem not to be mentioned so much, not by regressives like AOC and by literally no-one on this thread that I could see.

I find that interesting disturbing.

Phoebas

SeanW wrote: »

Like Alexandra Ocazio Cortez's "Green New Deal" that, among other things, proposes banning all air travel

No it doesn't.

Deebles McBeebles

declan2693 wrote: »

So the only people to breed are culchies. Not a bright future awaits

More Sean's and Seamus', less Anto and Deco's. Win win.

Pkiernan

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

An annual cow tax based on the emissions of the cow should be introduced. A cow puts out the same CO2 annually as burning 1000 litres of petrol in an average car.

No, it's actually the equivalent of burning 100 million gallons of petrol.

Franz Von Peppercorn

kneemos wrote: »

Oblivious to the fact you'll get old some day.

I’m in favour of euthanasia precisely because I will grow old.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

George Bernard Shaw advocated for yearly assessment of citizens to deem their worth to society. Those deemed not worthy would be taken aside and humanely euthanised. Important members of society such as politicians and rock stars would of course have to be excluded from assessment.

And playwrights.

That said he spent quite a few years bumming around himself.

seamus

Varik wrote: »

The counties that care, arnt the one with the surplus population.

This is a falsehood being spread by those who would like to west to forget about climate change.

Per capita the developing countries with the huge populations aren't producing a lot of CO2. China & India's per-capita rate is less than Ireland's.

In Africa and South America in particular, green energy is taking off in a massive way, because that part of the world - along the equator - stands to suffer the most from global temperature increases.

It would be incorrect to say that the countries with huge populations by default don't care.

The US is pretty sh1tty about it, and India is trying but not very hard. But China and the other big developing countries are moving pretty rapidly towards green energy, mainly because it's now cheaper to generate solar than burn coal.

SeanW

seamus wrote: »

This is a falsehood being spread by those who would like to west to forget about climate change.

Per capita the developing countries with the huge populations aren't producing a lot of CO2. China & India's per-capita rate is less than Ireland's.

CO2 emissions from developing countries (that actually are developing) are growing.

In Africa and South America in particular, green energy is taking off in a massive way, because that part of the world - along the equator - stands to suffer the most from global temperature increases.

"Green energy" you mean unreliable, low density, environmentally destructive "renewables?" How can they afford to do so considering how woefully inefficient "renewables" are? "Renewables" have driven the cost of electrcitiy in Germany to within the Top 10 of the worlds most expensive, along with Denmark where the cost of electricity is also absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
For equatorial countries to be seriously using "renewables" they would have to be spending 30-40c/kwh like Germany and Denmark are. They would also have to have wind turbines that could generate power when there's no wind and solar panels that generate power at night time.

China and the other big developing countries are moving pretty rapidly towards green energy, mainly because it's now cheaper to generate solar than burn coal.

China :rolleyes: Baahah ha ha ha ha, ROFLMAO ... that's a great joke. Oh wait, you were serious ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYY1TjRigl8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYY1TjRigl8