Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but computers increased productivity, lowered costs and had a massive environmental saving. All of humanity benefitted from that except those who lost their jobs, but thankfully could retrain as something better. We currently don't have anything better and cheaper than oil, aviation etc... when somebody comes up with something truly better then I'm sure we'd all just gladly make the switch, like the computer.

Externalized costs. Fossil fuels provide a great profit for those who produce and use them - and they create gigantic externalized costs for the rest of society and the planet, through the pollution they release - one of the results being pushing climate change, which creates immense indirect costs, that are going to get far worse in the future.

Fossil fuels, counting all of their costs including externalities, are far more costly than renewable sources of energy - and are going to become more and more costly as time goes on.

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

And yet you like it

Changed your mind?

The OP opined there were no arguments against the new glorious green new deal. I simply pointed out yes there were plenty of arguments already voiced about the green new deal Capiche?

Tbh I see very little denying going on in those articles. The most common mention of such denislism is that which is thrown at those brave enough to point out the puerile use of rhetoric and pie in the sky thinking.

But hey if anyone does not wish to engage in the discussion further - there's no skin lost evidently ...

Yeah. I think I'll take you up on your offer.

lleti

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

If half of the bluffers waffling on about climate change went outside and went picking some rubbish maybe things would change for the better.
It’s without doubt the most useless generation ever produced this one.
Technically advanced but seriously work shy.
Laughable all those people gathered for a protest.half them getting lifts to Dublin in the latest diesel.
Would be more in their line to stay home and pick some rubbish out of the ditches or beaches.
It’s not like the council are going to do it.same crowd wouldn’t work in a fit

Todays generation (and I am one of them) can't do anything good without telling everyone else via social media.

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Or we could try to be happier with less and just tone down the ridiculous levels of consumption. Although I doubt someone like you would agree to any type of inconvenience even if it's for the greater good.

I'll take hard fought for individual rights over some dystopian "greater good" decided by globalist technocrats... So would most people, including those currently deluded by utopian propaganda, doomsday preachers and religious tactics, they will snap out of it when they feel the pinch.

Bowlardo

lleti wrote: »

Todays generation (and I am one of them) can't do anything good without telling everyone else via social media.

Hard to argue with that

Doctors room ghost

lleti wrote: »

Todays generation (and I am one of them) can't do anything good without telling everyone else via social media.

Nows the time to start.
Put away the gadgets and go outside cleaning up.

Thelonious Monk

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I'll take hard fought for individual rights over some dystopian "greater good" decided by globalist technocrats... So would most people, including those currently deluded by utopian propaganda, doomsday preachers and religious tactics, they will snap out of it when they feel the pinch.

What did you fight hard for? Corporation tax? Why is Ireland rich? Or is it just by luck you were born here?

Thelonious Monk

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

Nows the time to start.
Put away the gadgets and go outside cleaning up.

Cleaning up is pointless. Pollution needs to be stopped at the source. For what it's worth I've gone to 2 beach cleanups on Dollymount beach which is local to me, this year, and intend to go on more. Have you done anything except moan?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

It does include the Job Guarantee policy - which would be a permanent end to involuntary unemployment.
. . .

A job means you are not idle and are working, a guarantee means you have a supervisor to oversee the quality of your work and where this has been done en-masse in practice means means labour camps where rather than pay a fair price for labour the state fabricates new crimes charges and enslaves people to work for the "greater good".

The Irish state also did political job stuffing for a long period with examples of several semi-state companies like the Post & Telegraphs and Aer Lingus. Back in those days if you wanted a phone line you had to wait on a list or bribe an individual in the P&T to get in done and I remember being on an Aer Lingus flight to Chicago where most of the passengers were Aer Lingus "relatives" to avail of the discounted flights. There was also the culture of pull to get the nice pensionable jobs like the Gardai and the waiting list to join the council rubbish collection. This creates an inefficient bureaucracy, higher costs, much higher taxes and the eventually the state goes bankrupt. Don't forget labour relations which means lots of strikes and since there is a guaranteed job then the customers must pay in terms of high prices and poor service.

Professor Moriarty

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

What did you fight hard for? Corporation tax? Why is Ireland rich? Or is it just by luck you were born here?

It's important not to be arguing with farce.

James Brown

lleti wrote: »

Todays generation (and I am one of them) can't do anything good without telling everyone else via social media.

Put down your avocado and go out and get a job!

Doctors room ghost

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Cleaning up is pointless. Pollution needs to be stopped at the source. For what it's worth I've gone to 2 beach cleanups on Dollymount beach which is local to me, this year, and intend to go on more. Have you done anything except moan?

I have of course.ive done several clean ups here and they actually cost me financially to get rid of the rubbish by a weigh in weight out service where our local council refused to be involved due to lack of insurance on participants.
If everyone had the attitude that it’s pointless to pick rubbish we would be forced to wade around in it.
Come down off your high horse lad for fear you would take a fall.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

A job means you are not idle and are working, a guarantee means you have a supervisor to oversee the quality of your work and where this has been done en-masse in practice means means labour camps where rather than pay a fair price for labour the state fabricates new crimes charges and enslaves people to work for the "greater good".

Instead of spouting more Libertarian conspiracy theories where everything you disagree with is somehow a plot for Communism, you could instead just Google 'Job Guarantee':
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/03/the-guardian-view-on-a-job-guarantee-a-policy-whose-time-has-come

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.
A one child policy like china?

We need a cultural shift away from expecting people to have kids and societally shaming them for not doing so, towards commending it as a self-sacrifice for the greater good. I'd also fully support an initiative such as tax breaks or some kind of subsidy or reward for people who choose not to contribute to overpopulation.

The biggest barrier to this is the generational ponzi scheme that is the current configuration of endless growth based capitalism and the debt cycle. There are huge vested interests in seeing each generation being bigger than the last - it should be obvious that this cycle can only continue for so long until it collapses, so personally I'd rather take the hit now and avoid screwing the place up for future generations.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The list of arguments identifiable in those articles are, paraphrasing: "Funding the GND means increasing taxes" - false, already dealt with - "We don't need to stop spouting increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere" - except the scientific consensus is that we do need to stop this - "Lets put mirrors into space to reflect the sun away" - ah yes, a literal 'pie in the sky'... - "The GND is bad because it's progressive" - if anything that makes it more popular - "It will be politically difficult" - greter public awareness/attention (including thanks to Greta and all) is turning the tide, here.That list of articles just goes to show that the quality of attempted arguments against it, really don't amount to much - if anything, they are so bad that they strenghten the argument for a GND.

And yet you previously claimed there were 'no arguments"... :rolleyes:

That's just a selection. I'd suggest you do some more research about your favourite topic - including what others have to say about the 'green new deal'

That you now disagree with the all the above arguments is perhaps not surprising considering that the majority of your comments simply come across as a repetitive party political broadcast.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Instead of spouting more Libertarian conspiracy theories where everything you disagree with is somehow a plot for Communism, you could instead just Google 'Job Guarantee':
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/03/the-guardian-view-on-a-job-guarantee-a-policy-whose-time-has-come

It's nothing but looking at unemployment through rose tinted glasses.

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

Instead of spouting more Libertarian conspiracy theories where everything you disagree with is somehow a plot for Communism, you could instead just Google 'Job Guarantee':
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/03/the-guardian-view-on-a-job-guarantee-a-policy-whose-time-has-come

Communists used to guarantee employment. Look where it got them.
Now it appears they want to guarantee productive employment.

All sounds good and well until you realize productive is a subjective term open to be interpreted at the the will of some overlord.

For example you could argue that one guy digging a hole, and another one filling it in is productive. Both men are getting a good work out, and both have jobs paid for by the state. What's the big deal?

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

And yet you previously claimed there were 'no arguments"... :rolleyes:

That's just a selection. I'd suggest you do some more research about your favourite topic - including what others have to say about the 'green new deal'

That you now disagree with the all the above arguments is perhaps not surprising considering that the majority of your comments simply come across as a repetitive party political broadcast.

Uh, yea none of those arguments even attempts to present a practical reason the GND can't be undertaken...

Lets hear you put an argument in your own words then: For what exact practical reasons, can the GND not be undertaken?

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Communists used to guarantee employment. Look where it got them.
Now it appears they want to guarantee productive employment.

All sounds good and well until you realize productive is a subjective term open to be interpreted at the the will of some overlord.

For example you could argue that one guy digging a hole, and another one filling it in is productive. Both men are getting a good work out, and both have jobs paid for by the state. What's the big deal?

So again, you only have ideological objections - because you subscribe to conspiracy theories that "anything I disagree with is Communism"...

You do realize there is an incredibly large amount of useful/productive work to do, in arresting carbon emissions - right? That this fits perfectly with the Job Guarantee?

I mean, faced with the work needed to arrest our contribution to climate change, and pretending that there is no useful work to do - that's just facetious...

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Uh, yea none of those arguments even attempts to present a practical reason the GND can't be undertaken...
Lets hear you put an argument in your own words then: For what exact practical reasons, can the GND not be undertaken?

As detailed - contrary to your previous claim there are evidently plenty of arguments against. See previous post and links before you try that argument again.

Funnily enough you don't agree with any of them. But more importantly this thread is about gretas voyage to the new world. If you want to go down the 6 lane highway that is green new deal bolloxology - best start a dedicated thread about it. Its feck all to do with this one tbh..

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

Lets hear you put an argument in your own words then: Why, exactly, can the GND not be undertaken?

• "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
• "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
• "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
• "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
• "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
• "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
• "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
• "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
• "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
• "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

More

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

As detailed - contrary to your previous claim there are evidently plenty of arguments against. See previous post and links before you try that argument again.

Funnily enough you don't agree with any of them. But more importantly this thread is about gretas voyage to the new world. If you want to go down the 6 lane highway that is green new deal bolloxology - best start a dedicated thread about it. Its feck all to do with this one tbh..

Are you a mod or something? Greta is supportive of the Green New Deal - and you and others are constantly pretending there are no solutions that can achieve Greta's stated goal of net zero emissions in 10 years etc..

So, in my opinion, it's perfectly on topic - especially given Greta's support of it.

Lets hear you put arguments in your own words, if you still think the GND is not an operable plan - as I've already gone through and rebutted those articles.

Pa ElGrande

Guide to job destruction (part 1) (via google translate)

„In order to have a chance at all to limit the climate crisis, the government must therefore ensure that this autumn ....“ says the " Environmental Protection Action Program for Effective Climate Protection .“ And then eight pages of an screed, the reads for the climate rescue believers like the promise of a climate paradise, for the rest of the world more like a guide to the rapid de-industrialization of Germany.

The paper is already a few weeks old, but I have not read anywhere that the ten most important and influential environmental organizations have just proclaimed the climate emergency, which justifies just about everything that is directed against the existing social order. It is misleading that these green front organizations are also concerned with environmental protection. The consequences of implementing the claims would be more devastating to the environment, but a billion-dollar business for the political and financial strippers of the organizations.

<snip>

German Climate Protection: Utopias for Impoverishment

But how does the public react if Germany were to save the country with tens of thousands more windmills? There are already about a thousand citizens‘ initiatives against wind power sites. The disadvantages of this „clean“ electricity are becoming increasingly clear. While wind power centers can produce electricity competitively in states with deserts and almost uninhabited regions, this is only possible to a limited extent in densely populated Germany.

What is praised in Germany as green electricity, is in reality a destruction of the landscape, destruction of the environment and an unreasonable burden on the residents. In addition, the Renewable Energy Act, the EEG, provides the source of an unprecedented redistribution from „bottom to top“, namely electricity payers, to landowners and capital owners who can afford highly subsidized wind turbines. For small incomes remain high electricity prices and the lowering of living standards. Electricity prices in Germany are already at record levels , and the 30 cent mark per kilowatt hour has just been exceeded . In other industrialized countries, such as France or the USA, the price of electricity is orders of magnitude lower.

<snip>
Welcome to the planned economy

Unfortunately, these findings are not exaggerated: Here is a quote from the paper of the Green Front :

„Households in Germany have a fortune of around six trillion euros. In order to also involve citizens in the sustainable infrastructure, the state lays out green treasury bonds as a public investment opportunity. "

And these climate funds will be equipped with credit authorizations to pay for massive investments in climate protection. But how much is left to a high-income middle-class family at their own disposal after they have insulated their homes, bought electric cars, bought expensive organic food, and put their money into green funds? Who pays when these funds go bankrupt as many solar and wind companies have done so far? After the mass of Germans has paid for the climate-related rebuilding of their daily lives, the old order of „you down there and we up there“ will be restored. Flying again becomes a privilege of the jet set, and summer holidays take place in the new power-by-joy of ecologically exemplary houses close to where they live.

Where there are losers, there are also winners. Dozens of „nonprofit“ companies will emerge, managing and managing the billion dollars of environmental change. Instead of a market economy, a subsidy economy will dominate our lives. Allen is taken and given to the adapted subjects, which is what determines the morally oppressed new green elite. These are today e-cars and vegan hamburgers, tomorrow the personal allocation to a public, ecologically standardized soup kitchen. (It has already started in nurseries and schools.) The path to this distorted economic order has long since begun. Readable on the subsidy report of the Kieler Weltwirtschaftsinstitut . For the year 2018, it has set a new record of 187.6 billion euros.

source (de)

It seems that Germans are beginning to seriously question their own governments imposition of the green new deal and there is also resistance to Greta on facebook at Fridays For Hubraum (piston displacement) which has gone viral with substantially more support than Fridays for Future.

nthclare

I heard something interesting today, those wind turbines need a lot of lubricant to run those propeller's.

So basically it's a load of bollox, because fossil fuels are still being used for the maintenance and service of the gear boxes and some run off diesel....

So much for clean energy huh

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

• "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
• "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
• "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
• "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
• "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
• "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
• "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
• "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
• "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
• "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

More

? You quote the stuff but you don't say anything about it - so this seems to be missing any argument.

Pa ElGrande

nthclare wrote: »

I heard something interesting today, those wind turbines need a lot of lubricant to run those propeller's. . . .

Think of all the "green jobs" created in the service industry. It is estimated they need one maintenance technician for every 25 MW wind power installed.

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

? You quote the stuff but you don't say anything about it - so this seems to be missing any argument.

It is impossible to have 100% green energy on a power grid. Those un-striken through sentences are all pie in the sky dreams, in every pragmatic sense impossible.

It is up for the people that wrote the green new deal to describe how to implement them, not for their critics to prove why it won't work.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Guide to job destruction (part 1) (via google translate)


It seems that Germans are beginning to seriously question their own governments imposition of the green new deal and there is also resistance to Greta on facebook at Fridays For Hubraum (piston displacement) which has gone viral with substantially more support than Fridays for Future.

What you quote is a criticism of NeoLiberal market-based solutions to climate change - NeoLiberal's love subsidies, that's why the fossil fuel industry receives so much in subsidies.

Green New Deal proponents, generally prefer government-led initiatives for transitioning economies to being carbon-neutral, not market-based ones - because market-based solutions don't provide results fast enough.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

What you quote is a criticism of NeoLiberal market-based solutions to climate change - NeoLiberal's love subsidies, that's why the fossil fuel industry receives so much in subsidies.

Green New Deal proponents, generally prefer government-led initiatives for transitioning economies to being carbon-neutral, not market-based ones - because market-based solutions don't provide results fast enough.

how many letters have you sent to people in 2019 vs 1994 ,
how many international meetings have become skype calls since 2000

I would say the market has cut emissions by a long shot in not a long time.

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

It is impossible to have 100% green energy on a power grid. Those un-striken through sentences are all pie in the sky dreams, in every pragmatic sense impossible.

It is up for the people that wrote the green new deal to describe how to implement them, not for their criticis to prove why it won't work.

There is an abundance of renewable energy sources (just Google how much energy is hitting the Earth all the time, vs how much the entire planet uses), with the right tech and mass production (preferably with minimized rare earths through R&D) to unlock it at a big enough scale, and combined with good enough storage (again needing R&D to minimize rare earths) - then there is no reason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy.

The GND advocates generally have described how to implement the policy changes - and massive R&D for technological development, as I describe, is right up there along with the other policies.

I mean lets take even just the R&D: What argument has anyone got, against governments worldwide, engaging in Manhattan Project style (on the scale of the whole world) R&D, for refining technology for reducing emissions?

None. Taking just that one aspect of the GND - nobody has an argument as to why governments should not be spending enormous money, employing huge numbers of people, worldwide - for doing this.