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

Pa ElGrande

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yep get out there and protest!

It only takes one person to make a difference You can do it!

You have to organise sponsorship for the campaign beforehand and have the background material and copy written for the churnalists to publish in national media. Otherwise you end up ignored like those individuals protesting outside Leinster house from time to time.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Funny you post that after the state of the previous post. A wall of noise.Also, the vast majority of pro-environment commentators on this thread don't say you cant challenge her because she's a child, they say you cant challenge her with nonsense. Do you understand the difference?

Oh but we do! And at over 10% posts as highlighted by another poster - a wall of noise indeed. Theres no need to be trying to occupy any high moral ground.

As far as I can see plenty of pro-environment supporters on this thread believe the greta dog and pony show does not stand up to scrutiny.

It's the small number of pedestal raising greta worshippers who repeatedly refuse to listen any argument or any criticism (or even any humour whatsoever) where the child greta does not come out as the shining star and covered in sprinkles.

And not only do the same group refuse to listen to any criticism or argument against this set up whatsover - we have instead various ad hominems in the form of accusations of paedophilia, weirdo yada yada. Plenty of that in this thread - check if you are any doubt.

All with the end result that practically every single point raised in this thread has been met with variations of the popularised mantra of 'greta is great' / you cant criticise greta'. But guess what it's fairly obvious that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Or as was the case of the poorly advised emperor - it's very obvious his royal highness was running around in the nip all the while his acolytes were telling him that the new suit of clothes were absolutely lovely ...

hetuzozaho

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You have to organise sponsorship for the campaign beforehand and have the background material and copy written for the churnalists to publish in national media. Otherwise you end up ignored like those individuals protesting outside Leinster house from time to time.

They might not be the reasons they are being ignored

ToBeFrank123

Another good move would be for Ireland to sell the government jet. There are plenty of ways to get around these days without the need for one, and it is horrendously expensive to fly and maintain, something like 5000 an hour.

This would be a very strong message from Varadkar and Michael D. that they are serious about setting an example.

ThunbergsAreGo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Another good move would be for Ireland to sell the government jet. There are plenty of ways to get around these days without the need for one, and it is horrendously expensive to fly and maintain, something like 5000 an hour.

This would be a very strong message from Varadkar and Michael D. that they are serious about setting an example.

Even not using it to go to Belfast would be a start...

begsbyOnaTrain

We should sell off the planes that the air corps use too. Useful for absolutely nothing except for the lads to have a laugh in and spewing out emissions. We rely on the RAF to protect the skies, let's not have these jokers around as some faux demonstration.

Why do all the ministers require their own cars and drivers? Fuk them, let them use taxis or buses. I can see a case for the President and Taoiseach having one but not the rest of them.

Pa ElGrande

hetuzozaho wrote: »

They might not be the reasons they are being ignored

True. However if you want to get noticed you have to set the stage, that means you need to hawk your story to the journalists beforehand and depending on how contentious your issue is (the politics of the editorial room plus libel laws) you eventually find someone to run with it. If you have money you can simply hire a public relations agency and they will do the leg work for you. You then visit the TDs in your area and present them with your story and again depending on how contentious your story is they may ask questions of the minister on your behalf. You can also speak to the minister directly in advance.
They with perfect timing - you hold your protest, the journalist or PR agency publishes your story, the TDs ask the questions and the minister answers and if you have really done your homework well you will have been in contact with RTEs producers and can appear on the radio on Joe Duffy (if you have no PR) or if you have PR you can get on the morning news show.


One of the most effective such campaigns I've ever seen in Ireland was the take down of the head shops. I remember tracking it at the time, what twigged it for me was an article by Terry Prone (why was she writing about that I asked myself) and then I looked further into it and saw the first article calling for their banning came in the then Taoiseachs Brian Cowans constituency. I remember being impressed at the time by the speed and coordination that took down the head shops, it was a very well organised campaign.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Farewell to economic growth - but how?

Green capitalism is using Greta Thunberg

If you want economic growth to continue, then you should be in favour of the Green New Deal - because that creates the transition to renewable energy, which is a requirement for allowing economic growth to continue far into the future, without pushing climate change that would eventually decimate economic output.

Economic growth, however, is exponential - and the resources on the planet are finite, and the overall carrying capacity of the planet is finite - which means some day (centuries from now in my view) economic growth is going to run up against the limits of the planet - it can go on for a long time, but exponential economic growth in a finite world, is impossible to sustain forever.

So, some day - not in our lifetimes, in my view - we're going to have to reckon with the end of economic growth - that's just an inevitability. It only becomes an issue in our lifetimes, if we don't act fast enough to arrest carbon emissions - as we will be hitting limits early, then.


If you are against Green Capitalism i.e. NeoLiberal solutions to climate change, which involve subsidies to private operators, that are a boondoggle designed to fail, because it can't scale enough to make a difference - i.e. making 'market-solutions' the primary solution - then get on board with the Green New Deal ala AOC/Sanders, which doesn't rely on NeoLiberal solutions, it sticks to proper government-oriented responses to emissions.

lleti

I can't believe the boomers caused the Sahara desert. There was a sea there 7 million years ago and now there's just sand. Shame on the boomers for doing this!

baaba maal

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

We should sell off the planes that the air corps use too. Useful for absolutely nothing except for the lads to have a laugh in and spewing out emissions. We rely on the RAF to protect the skies, let's not have these jokers around as some faux demonstration.

Why do all the ministers require their own cars and drivers? Fuk them, let them use taxis or buses. I can see a case for the President and Taoiseach having one but not the rest of them.

Are you including the two CASA CN235 Marine Patrol planes that are used for fishery protection or did you just make an unsubstantiated and poorly thought-out claim?

begsbyOnaTrain

baaba maal wrote: »

Are you including the two CASA CN235 Marine Patrol planes that are used for fishery protection or did you just make an unsubstantiated and poorly thought-out claim?

Nope, those have a function. I mean the wannabe fighters, wiki says they're called Pilatus PC-9. Absolutely no reason in the world to have them.

baaba maal

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

No seriously. Carbon fibre is horrendously costly to produce, damaging to the environment and virtually impossible to recycle. And if you don't believe me:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/22/carbon-fibre-wonder-material-dirty-secret

So much for leading by example.

All these prominant wealthy environmentalists such as Thunberg, Prince Charles and Prince Harry are exactly the same. They demand everyone else makes sacrifices, just don't ask them to make some themselves. Mostly grade A hypocrits.

And the point I put to you about the hypocrisy of the billionaires? Do they get a free pass because you are not subjected to stories about them in the media that you choose to consume.

Seriously, you seem to think she is the problem, when the real problem is somewhat bigger. The most profitable company in the world is Saudi Aramco (the state oil company so essentially owned by the Saudi royal family with profits (profits- not turnover) of over 300 billion last year- why aren't you getting all hot and bothered about them instead of a young person getting a lift on a boat that was already in existence when she was offered the lift.
If you want to point out the hypocrisy of a royal family- include the Saudis in that.

baaba maal

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Nope, those have a function. I mean the wannabe fighters, wiki says they're called Pilatus PC-9. Absolutely no reason in the world to have them.

Well, your statement didn't differentiate hence I pointed out the fact that not all the planes are used for the lads to "have a laugh".

hetuzozaho

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

True. However if you want to get noticed you have to set the stage, that means you need to hawk your story to the journalists beforehand and depending on how contentious your issue is (the politics of the editorial room plus libel laws) you eventually find someone to run with it. .

You can I guess, but even with that you might be left standing with a few people outside Google HQ.

Sometimes you might just hold views that most people think are a bit silly.

begsbyOnaTrain

baaba maal wrote: »

Well, your statement didn't differentiate hence I pointed out the fact that not all the planes are used for the lads to "have a laugh".

Fair enough.

It's just the "fighters" then that are there for the lads to have a laugh on. They certainly can't protect the country, the Wright brothers would give those planes a tough battle!

ToBeFrank123

baaba maal wrote: »

And the point I put to you about the hypocrisy of the billionaires? Do they get a free pass because you are not subjected to stories about them in the media that you choose to consume.

Seriously, you seem to think she is the problem, when the real problem is somewhat bigger. The most profitable company in the world is Saudi Aramco (the state oil company so essentially owned by the Saudi royal family with profits (profits- not turnover) of over 300 billion last year- why aren't you getting all hot and bothered about them instead of a young person getting a lift on a boat that was already in existence when she was offered the lift.
If you want to point out the hypocrisy of a royal family- include the Saudis in that.

I said earlier that big oil producing nations are part of the problem. Read back my posts if you don't believe me. They will just ignore her and her message isn't aimed at them really. Its aimed at the west, these kinds of protests always are. The rest of the world will just ignore her, and its countries like China and India who will be the really big CO2 emitters in future.

As for hypocrisy, people like Michael D. will lecture us all day long about climate change, then fly to Belfast on the government jet.

baaba maal

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Fair enough.

It's just the "fighters" then that are there for the lads to have a laugh on. They certainly can't protect the country, the Wright brothers would give those planes a tough battle!

And I happen to agree with you on that- I used to live near to Baldonnell so I was always aware that the single prop fighter planes were not putting the fear of god into any opposing forces!

Eric Cartman

lleti wrote: »

I can't believe the boomers caused the Sahara desert. There was a sea there 7 million years ago and now there's just sand. Shame on the boomers for doing this!

Weve entered a twilight zone where men aged 40+ are responsible for all of the ills in the world and questioning that makes you complicit in those ills also

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

Oh but we do! And at over 10% posts as highlighted by another poster - a wall of noise indeed. Theres no need to be trying to occupy any high moral ground.

As far as I can see plenty of pro-environment supporters on this thread believe the greta dog and pony show does not stand up to scrutiny.

It's the small number of pedestal raising greta worshippers who repeatedly refuse to listen any argument or any criticism (or even any humour whatsoever) where the child greta does not come out as the shining star and covered in sprinkles.

And not only do the same group refuse to listen to any criticism or argument against this set up whatsover - we have instead various ad hominems in the form of accusations of paedophilia, weirdo yada yada. Plenty of that in this thread - check if you are any doubt.

All with the end result that practically every single point raised in this thread has been met with variations of the popularised mantra of 'greta is great' / you cant criticise greta'. But guess what it's fairly obvious that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Or as was the case of the poorly advised emperor - it's very obvious his royal highness was running around in the nip all the while his acolytes were telling him that the new suit of clothes were absolutely lovely ...

I haven't seen a single poster who seems to hold the view that the IPCC reports are alarming and require urgent action, while at the same time the calling what Greta is doing a "dog and pony show"

Everyone can say they are pro environment, it come down to what are they willing to do or more importantly support on a political level.

All I seem to read here is a lot of stuff about China and India, how things won't work and a constant need to point out hypocrisy.

These are valid in their own right but why do they need to be antagonistic to what the IPCC are saying. (Which is the same as Greta Thurberg)

Brussels Sprout

lleti wrote: »

You could have Stephen Hawking come back from the dead and say the same thing as Greta and no one would listen, yet a little "angle" in Greta says something and everyone bends the knee.

Aww, that so acute!

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

I haven't seen a single poster who seems to hold the view that the IPCC reports are alarming and require urgent action, while at the same time the calling what Greta is doing a "dog and pony show"
Everyone can say they are pro environment, it come down to what are they willing to do or more importantly support on a political level.
All I seem to read here is a lot of stuff about China and India, how things won't work and a constant need to point out hypocrisy.
These are valid in their own right but why do they need to be antagonistic to what the IPCC are saying. (Which is the same as Greta Thurberg)

I was right with you (with maybe the exception of the others, who according to you are not in agreement with the IPCC report and are also critical of the greta circus etc) until the last line.

Greta Thunberg is not the IPCC. What she has been variously saying is not only - not the same as what the IPCC are saying - but in many points her rantings are nowhere even near their findings. The IPCC do they not include tipping points in the modeling - they certainly do not give a date 10 years in the future when civilisation goes tits up. Neither do they intone about fear and panic or ruining peoples childhoods. It's like her scripts take the general idea of climate change and dump them into a big vat of hyperbole and hysterics and then hangs that out for public viewing and expects everyone to nod their heads in agreement.

On a side note - you ask why China et all keep getting referred to? The answer is simple- because China is the single biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet followed India in third place. If countries like those are not on board - you can kiss your ass goodbye as to any hope that anything else is going to provide even close to an adequate solution to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Pa ElGrande

gozunda wrote: »

. . .
On a side note - you ask why China et all keep getting referred to? The answer is simple- because China is the single biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet followed India in third place. If countries like those are not on board - you can kiss your ass goodbye as to any hope that anything else is going to provide even close to an adequate solution to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Not only that there has been a coal energy rush occurring in Asia. Both China and Japan are competing to finance massive industrialisation and increased coal generator capacity in poor countries and they are calling it climate finance. The reasoning is the new coal plants are high efficiency coal generators rather that the low efficiency generators that would be all these countries could afford without finance. Net result is more C02 generation. So while they are building cheap energy systems we are being hampered with higher prices and then you are left with the question at what point do the renewable energy systems being implemented break the system?


What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?

<snip>

Unfortunately, not every Google moon shot leaves Earth orbit. In 2011, the company decided that RE<C was not on track to meet its target and shut down the initiative. The two of us, who worked as engineers on the internal RE<C projects, were then forced to reexamine our assumptions.

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed.

source

There are issues with the economics of renewable energy beginning to affect the grid operation as can be seen in the a recent blackout in the UK.


Constraint Payments to Hornsea Offshore Wind

There is much talk about the importance of "energy storage" to enable the adoption of renewables. It is often forgotten in such discussions that the conventional electricity system, of fossil fuelled and nuclear power stations, already has a large storage component built into it. This energy store is found in the rotating mass of the turbine shafts in the generators, and also, to a lesser extent, in the rotating mass of the large electric motors used by some electricity consumers. The rate at which the shafts of those generators, and synchronised motors, are turning is determined by the chosen electricity System Frequency, which in the UK is 50 Hz, or 50 revolutions a second, 3,000 rpm. In almost exactly the same way that a gyroscope has stability and resists attempts to move it due to the energy stored as kinetic energy in its rapidly turning wheel, the synchronised rotations of the electricity generators deliver system "inertia" making it robust against accidents and other surprises, for example an unforecast increase in electricity demand, a grid line failure or the loss of one or more power stations. The energy stored in the spinning mass of the turbines can be drawn down very briefly to buffer the shock and allow time for other generators to increase their output to address the shortfall. In that event, the frequency of the system falls as all the generators slow down due to loss of energy.

Unfortunately, not all generators are capable of operating in this synchronised fashion, and these generators do not contribute to inertia. Solar photovoltaics, for example, have no rotating parts, and wind turbines do not have sufficient mass in their generator shafts to contribute significantly to inertia. Consequently, these generators operate asynchronously, as do the electricity interconnectors with the networks of other countries.

As the proportion of renewable generation and the increased reliance on interconnectors has grown in the UK, the average inertia of the system at any moment has declined, meaning that the system would be less resilient in the face of an accident unless compensating measures were taken, for example the addition of asynchronous compensators (effectively flywheels), generation capable of a very rapid response, such as pumped storage hydropower, or other energy storage devices such as batteries.

It has been assumed hitherto that the UK System Operator, National Grid ESO, was taking adequate steps to ensure that declining inertia was not a threat. However, the load shedding causing local blackouts over the United Kingdom on the afternoon of the 9th of August this year, has put National Grid's management of the system under the spotlight, raising many questions.

source

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Weve entered a twilight zone where men aged 40+ are responsible for all of the ills in the world and questioning that makes you complicit in those ills also

No it just seems to be men aged 40+ who moan the most about everything. All you f*cking do is moan moan moan about everyone else. I don't know how you live like that.

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

I was right with you (with maybe the exception of the others, who according to you are not in agreement with the IPCC report and are also critical of the greta circus etc) until the last line.

Greta Thunberg is not the IPCC. What she has been variously saying is not only - not the same as what the IPCC are saying - but in many points her rantings are nowhere even near their findings. The IPCC do they not include tipping points in the modeling - they certainly do not give a date 10 years in the future when civilisation goes tits up. Neither do they intone about fear and panic or ruining peoples childhoods. It's like her scripts take the general idea of climate change and dump them into a big vat of hyperbole and hysterics and then hangs that out for public viewing and expects everyone to nod their heads in agreement.

On a side note - you ask why China et all keep getting referred to? The answer is simple- because China is the single biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet followed India in third place. If countries like those are not on board - you can kiss your ass goodbye as to any hope that anything else is going to provide even close to an adequate solution to global greenhouse gas emissions.

We all know that China is a big emmitter of CO2, and since they are not a democracy no point appealing to the Chinese people.
So I guess we, as in the rest of the world. End of discussion.
Is that the attitude you would like world leaders to adopt? Serious question.

Woodsie1

It's pissing against the wind if China and India are doing **** all.

Thelonious Monk

Woodsie1 wrote: »

It's pissing against the wind if China and India are doing **** all.

Per capita we are far worse than India and China, it's a global problem. Do you not want to clean up your own back yard?

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No it just seems to be men aged 40+ who moan the most about everything. All you f*cking do is moan moan moan about everyone else. I don't know how you live like that.

You will be 40+ one day also. With age comes a better nose for bull**** and a lower tolerance for it.

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

You will be 40+ one day also. With age comes a better nose for bull**** and a lower tolerance for it.

Next August. And tbh the older I'm getting the more relaxed about everything and left leaning I'm becoming. I might even dye my hair pink or blue.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

There are issues with the economics of renewable energy beginning to affect the grid operation as can be seen in the a recent blackout in the UK.
Constraint Payments to Hornsea Offshore Wind

So Google put a grand total of two people on a project - one which was cancelled most of a decade ago... - two people who have apparently never heard of the concept of combining solar power with energy storage? The article starts with the question of making renewables cheaper than coal (they already are, by a long way, so the whole article is refuted already...), then proceed to do an incredible amount of goalpost-shifting away from that question, such that they are answering completely different questions, and pushing some stupid management-speak 70-20-10 rule by the end of the article.

About the only useful quote from the article, is this:

Our society needs to fund scientists and engineers to propose and test new ideas, fail quickly, and share what they learn. Today, the energy innovation cycle is measured in decades, in large part because so little money is spent on critical types of R&D.

Sounds like exactly what we need the Green New Deal for, since the private sector can't do R&D in a timely manner...

As for the second article: Upgrade the fucking grid, then! That's what the Green New Deal is for and proposes.

Flywheeel energy storage both provides a means for mass energy storage from renewables, as well as providing identical buffering for the grid that turbines provide - they are even mentioned right in the article - perfect low-tech, non-rare-earth energy storage, which also provides grid buffering.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Next August. And tbh the older I'm getting the more relaxed about everything and left leaning I'm becoming. I might even dye my hair pink or blue.

You are definitely an outlier.