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

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

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 do you explain the government led initiative for transitioning away from single use plastic bags, which have far less of a carbon footprint to their paper and reusable counterparts?

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

then there is no reason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy.

There is everyreason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy. Most renewable energy supplies are intermittent. Think about when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down.

Eric Cartman

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

How do you explain the government led initiative for transitioning away from single use plastic bags, which have far less of a carbon footprint to their paper and reusable counterparts?

+1
also im going to take a list of every person in a political sphere advocating for the ban on plastic straws and call them out when they inevitably decide to give a crap about all the trees being cut down for the paper ones.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

? Carbon emissions have been trending up overall, not down...

Private industry would need to get us to Zero emissions. Preferably by the end of the next decade.

Everyone knows that private industry can't achieve that. Only government action, worldwide, can.

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, there are all too many people with arguments why this shouldn't be done. Usually most vocal from those of a conservative mind-set who feel government interference in the free market is already way too much and when you suggest them spending enormously, what they hear is having to pay more and more tax and that is enough for them to veto such a plan.

Eric Cartman

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

There is everyreason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy. Most renewable energy supplies are intermittent. Think about when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down.

Inb4 the poster comes back talking crap about batteries or interconnectors which kill child miners every year and give full control to china
or undersea turbines which destroy marine life.

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

Usually most vocal from those of a conservative mind-set who feel government interference in the free market is already way too much and when you suggest them spending enormously, what they hear is having to pay more and more tax and that is enough for them to veto such a plan.

What they hear is people end up starving, people end up suffering and people end up dying. Top down intervention like what is being advocated has long history of this stuff.

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

KyussB wrote: »

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.

There is everyreason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy. Most renewable energy supplies are intermittent. Think about when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down.

The bit in bold (mentioning energy storage in particular) is the bit this poster cut-out from my sentence, to make it look like this remained unanswered.

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

The bit in bold (mentioning energy storage in particular) is the bit this poster cut-out from my sentence, to make it look like this remained unanswered.

So this whole new GND is dependent on future technology not yet available?

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are all too many people with arguments why this shouldn't be done. Usually most vocal from those of a conservative mind-set who feel government interference in the free market is already way too much and when you suggest them spending enormously, what they hear is having to pay more and more tax and that is enough for them to veto such a plan.

True More accurate to say, nobody can provide an argument as to why these things can't be done - there will of course be all sorts of right-wing ideology based reasons why they think things shouldn't be done.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

? Carbon emissions have been trending up overall, not down...

Private industry would need to get us to Zero emissions. Preferably by the end of the next decade.

Everyone knows that private industry can't achieve that. Only government action, worldwide, can.

Population growth, longer lifespans and the increase in consumer spending in africa and asia have an awful lot to do with that.



the only way worldwide government intervention will ever achieve anything is by asian and african countries completely screwing over their citizens and the manufacturing sector.

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What they hear is people end up starving, people end up suffering and people end up dying. Top down intervention like what is being advocated has long history of this stuff.

They're called Governments. The entities in our countries that do top-down intervention all the time.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

So this whole new GND is dependent on future technology not yet available?

No it's for R&D on developing the needed technology as rapidly as possible - it doesn't advocate waiting for that tech first.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

The bit in bold (mentioning energy storage in particular) is the bit this poster cut-out from my sentence, to make it look like this remained unanswered.

"what private business has been doing isnt quick enough"
"if we put the government in charge they can definitely research and develop things that don't currently exist and private business has been trying to do for years in a much shorter timeframe and thats how fully renewable energy will work"

Pa ElGrande

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.

If you say so. Tax breaks are not subsidies if that is what you are thinking. Oil companies may receive indirect subsidies through the winter fuel allowance and they have offloaded Whitegate some time ago.

KyussB wrote: »

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.

Voters prefer market based solutions because they can vote their preferences with their wallets. Green new dealers prefer authoritarian solutions because they lack the expertise to implement a technocracy and since climate change is about social consensus, the lower social orders will know their place.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Population growth, longer lifespans and the increase in consumer spending in africa and asia have an awful lot to do with that.



the only way worldwide government intervention will ever achieve anything is by asian and african countries completely screwing over their citizens and the manufacturing sector.

That's if the governments play by the old rules of just flat out trying to inhibit development so as to reduce emissions.

The GND and other advocates of change recognize the need (particularly) for development and are advocating for alternatives technologies to be developed to reduce emissions. Not that we keep using the same technology but less of it.

That is a fundamental difference not seemingly understood by those saying Greta and others don't understand what it means to cut emissions.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

That's if the governments play by the old rules of just flat out trying to inhibit development so as to reduce emissions.

The GND and other advocates of change recognize the need (particularly) for development and are advocating for alternatives technologies to be developed to reduce emissions. Not that we keep using the same technology but less of it.

That is a fundamental difference not seemingly understood by those saying Greta and others don't understand what it means to cut emissions.

but according to greta and all the others we don't have time for 'ifs' and 'research'

if you need to reduce emissions fast - nuclear power is what you have
if you need to do it cheaply - you start a genocide
if you want to do it the cleanest way possible its going to take 50 years minimum , which is fine by most timelines except the alarmists, we'll all be dead by then according to them.

any solutions that require a technological advancement beyone what we have right now are solutions that must acknowledge that we have a lot longer than greta says to fix this.
any solutions that want to adhere to gretas timeline cannot feature an advancement and must by their nature result in authoritarian deprivation of property or rights from people, a heavy worldwide nuclear power program or a genocide.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

"what private business has been doing isnt quick enough"
"if we put the government in charge they can definitely research and develop things that don't currently exist and private business has been trying to do for years in a much shorter timeframe and thats how fully renewable energy will work"

Precisely. Just like how the US government put men on the moon by the end of the coming decade - and now 50 years later Musk still hasn't achieved manned flight, despite his business being around almost 2 decades, with the full benefit of the fruits of all of NASA's previous tech R&D.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Population growth, longer lifespans and the increase in consumer spending in africa and asia have an awful lot to do with that.



the only way worldwide government intervention will ever achieve anything is by asian and african countries completely screwing over their citizens and the manufacturing sector.

What is the carbon footprint per capita for Nigeria? India?

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but according to greta and all the others we don't have time for 'ifs' and 'research'

if you need to reduce emissions fast - nuclear power is what you have
if you need to do it cheaply - you start a genocide
if you want to do it the cleanest way possible its going to take 50 years minimum , which is fine by most timelines except the alarmists, we'll all be dead by then according to them.

No, we won't be dead in 50 years' time if changes aren't made quickly. However, the world's climate will be very different with consequential global problems and climate change will have passed tipping point. What is tipping point? Have a guess.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

Precisely. Just like how the US government put men on the moon by the end of the coming decade - and now 50 years later Musk still hasn't achieved manned flight, despite his business being around almost 2 decades, with the full benefit of the fruits of all of NASA's previous tech R&D.

NASA just wanted to get a man to the moon, the US government couldn't give a sh*t if they made it back or not at the time. Elon is chasing re-usable, efficient space travel, its a completely different goal and not comparable.

Eric Cartman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, we won't be dead in 50 years' time if changes aren't made quickly. However, the world's climate will be very different with consequential global problems and climate change will have passed tipping point. What is tipping point? Have a guess.

so we have to make the changes quickly, so new tech is out, whats the plan then if new tech is out, how do we meet the worlds energy demand without reducing the population ?

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so we have to make the changes quickly, so new tech is out, whats the plan then if new tech is out, how do we meet the worlds energy demand without reducing the population ?

We start by getting everyone on board. Especially China, India, America, Russia, the EU etc. Then we formulate a plan based on the best scientific research available.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We start by getting everyone on board. Especially China, India, America, Russia, the EU etc. Then we formulate a plan based on the best scientific research available.

If only we had some sort of accord that countries signed up to, adhered to and stuck with.....

lleti

It really is a form of brainwashing what is happening to these kids. Since when did people listen to kids? Would everyone listen to them if they were out protesting for the voting age to be reduced to 13? Sure if they're able to understand climate change etc. then surely they understand politics?

Last friday week I heard on the radio a teacher saying how important it was for their students to go protest....seemed more like the teacher suggested they should go! That's how brainwashing works. Teachers have great influence over kids and young kids will believe anything they're told. Middle aged stay at home mammies proclaiming "something needs to be done in the next 12 years or it will be terrible."

lleti

Tell me how wrote: »

If only we had some sort of accord that countries signed up to, adhered to and stuck with.....

Paris accord is a joke.

Sure Brazil are in it. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

If only we had some sort of accord that countries signed up to, adhered to and stuck with.....

There is one! 195 countries signed up but one wants to withdraw, the name of which escapes me.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49885450

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is one! 195 countries signed up but one wants to withdraw, the name of which escapes me.

No there isn’t. That was just something thrown together for PR reasons. The actions in it would not achieve anything.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

No there isn’t. That was just something thrown together for PR reasons. The actions in it would not achieve anything.

There is no Paris Accord? Can you prove this?

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is no Paris Accord? Can you prove this?

I never said there is no Paris accord. I said it is a pile of nonsense thrown together for PR reasons. Do you think it will stop climate change?