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

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Which is why the entire world should focus on condemning china, india , south american and african countries before trying to tax europe to death

Say you're living in a house and you don't use refuse collection but instead burn rubbish. 2 bags a week.
Your neighbour burns 5 bags a week.

Are you saying you should not have to stop burning your 2, until he has reduced his amount to that number or less?

It would be an ignorant position, it would be saying, "it's ok for me to pollute, because I'm not the worst one doing it".

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

Say you're living in a house and you don't use refuse collection but instead burn rubbish. 2 bags a week.
Your neighbour burns 5 bags a week.

Are you saying you should not have to stop burning your 2, until he has reduced his amount to that number or less?

It would be an ignorant position, it would be saying, "it's ok for me to pollute, because I'm not the worst one doing it".

No, but if everyone on my road was screaming at me to stop burning rubbish and i went from 2 bags to 1 id be pretty pissed off that they completely left my neighbour alone and he reduced nothing.

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

For a start it should be on a basis of, If a country has more factory's, cars, power plants, people ect... Then it would surely have a greater impact on emissions then a smaller country

Christ man, look at the links posted previously. That is not contested.

So, what now?

windy shepard henderson

Tell me how wrote: »

Christ man, look at the links posted previously. That is not contested.

So, what now?

My argument is against people mainly in the media using the per capita system to say we are the 3rd highest in Europe in terms of emissions


The answer is we are nowhere near that level, and should be based according

I totally get what you're saying. But a per capita system is hiding the reality of what is going on

high_king

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

But a per capita system is hiding the reality of what is going on

And that is a key clue to what is really going on.

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

My argument is against people mainly in the media using the per capita system to say we are the 3rd highest in Europe in terms of emissions


The answer is we are nowhere near that level, and should be based according

I totally get what you're saying. But a per capita system is hiding the reality of what is going on

But that just brings us back once again to the question of how do you objectively compare the behaviour of one country versus another given population size is an influence on what their emissions are going to be?

What you are suggesting is no one dies anything until China improves, then the US, then India and so on.

We dont have time for that.

high_king

Tell me how wrote: »

What you are suggesting is no one dies anything until China improves, then the US, then India and so on.

Where did anyone suggest that ? Or are you making things up again ?
Like it or not, the greatest change, and what will have by far the greatest effect, should be coming from the greatest polluters, yet they are all being given a free pass, especially the corporations.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, but if everyone on my road was screaming at me to stop burning rubbish and i went from 2 bags to 1 id be pretty pissed off that they completely left my neighbour alone and he reduced nothing.

China are signatories of the Paris Accord and have their targets to meet.

Tell me how

high_king wrote: »

Where did anyone suggest that ? Or are you making things up again ?
Like it or not, the greatest change, and what will have by far the greatest effect, should be coming from the greatest polluters, yet they are all being given a free pass, especially the corporations.

I'm sorry for inferring from what is implied.

How are the greatest polluters and corporations being given a free pass?

high_king

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm sorry for inferring from what is implied.

You mean pretending.

Tell me how wrote: »

How are the greatest polluters and corporations being given a free pass?

We know the government's plan is to tax the shyte out of ordinary people in Ireland.
What are the governments proposals for the corporations and the largest polluting countries in the international "community" ?

Tell me how

high_king wrote: »

We know the government's plan is to tax the shyte out of ordinary people in Ireland.
What are the governments proposals for the corporations and the largest polluting countries in the international "community" ?

You do know we can change the government every 5 years and it is not at all difficult to get yourself on the ballot paper?

Our government is not responsible for proposals to the international community aside from its contributions via the IPCC and it's role in Europe.

Stop looking over there the whole time to try to justify inaction here at home.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

China are signatories of the Paris Accord and have their targets to meet.

Ok so they have targets so do we no need for any of us to do anything so...

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok so they have targets so do we no need for any of us to do anything so...

So you're admitting you were wrong to suggest that they were being left alone.

You are now on board with developing positive proposals for action in Ireland?

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

So you're admitting you were wrong to suggest that they were being left alone.

You are now on board with developing positive proposals for action in Ireland?

No, i said greta and her ilk (which this thread is about) are leaving them alone. Why do rich white countries that are also signed up to the accord get an extra brow beating from the angry swede and welfare rebellion but the real polluters dont...

As for positive proposals - ive already said build a giant nuclear power plant and cut all taxes on greener vehicles. These two steps would help immensely. Ive no problem with being greener but we need to make green options cheaper rather than taxing everyone to death or banning/fining people put of behaviour

Professor Moriarty

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Ice caps will melt over time, to be fair they have been shrinking for centuries, they are the last remains of the ice age,

Research: To assess the ice mass balance of Antarctica to date.

Methodology: Meta-analysis of 24 independently derived estimates of ice-sheet mass balance

Conclusion: Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone.

Source: NASA, European Space Agency, IMBIE.

Rising sea levels and corrosion are two different things that somehow seem to be connected, greystones area in Ireland and East anglia in England are severely hit with corrosion due to the weak enbankments against the ocean,

Research: To determine how waves might change in the future.

Methodology: Meta-analysis of 10 global wave models from different institutions.

Conclusion: Where warming continues in line with current trends, the models agreed the planet is likely to see significant changes in wave conditions along 50% of the world's coasts leading to changes in erosion.

Sources: UK National Oceanography Centre et al.

You don't need to be a scientist to know if you put ice cubes into a glass of water the level remains the same after the ice melts

Research: What are the causal factors that could explain a past rise in sea levels?

Methodology: Meta-analysis of various global research papers.

Conclusion: The rate of rise in sea levels implied by the Business-as-Usual best-estimate is 3-6 times faster than that experienced over the last 100 years. Most of the contribution is estimated to derive from thermal expansion of the oceans and the increased melting of mountain glaciers.

Source: IPCC

To be fair though there are several 1000s of things that really do need to change though Interms of eco related stuff

Indeed.

Constant building on floodplain areas will lead to greater flooding

Indeed. Bad planning causes flooding due to building on river flood plains

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was an example of this with huge deviation caused, a lot or the new Orleans area is Marsh like parts of Florida when big storms hit areas years ago these would have been floodplain areas nowadays they are towns and cities sitting in them

Research: To determine if rising sea levels contributed to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.

Methodology: Observed climate and sea level trends over the last century used to create surge simulations and models.

Conclusion: Surge simulations suggest that flood elevations would have been 15 to 60 % lower c. 1900 than the conditions observed in 2005. This drastic change suggests that significantly more flood damage occurred in 2005 than would have occurred if sea level and climate conditions had been like those c. 1900.

Sources: Various researchers in US Army, Princeton and Virginia Tech.

The same is going to happen in the far east especially in low lying countries in the subcontinent where cities and towns are expanding all the time

Research: To determine the impact of global vulnerability to seal level rises and coastal flooding.

Methodology: Meta-analysis of various research papers and modelling.

Conclusion: Sea levels projected by 2050 are high enough to threaten land currently home to a total of 150 million people to a future permanently below the high tide line.

Sources: Climate Central, Princeton.

Taxing Irish cars will not solve these problems, but neither will scare mongering

Feel free to challenge any of my "scare mongering" with facts.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, i said greta and her ilk (which this thread is about) are leaving them alone. Why do rich white countries that are also signed up to the accord get an extra brow beating from the angry swede and welfare rebellion but the real polluters dont...

As for positive proposals - ive already said build a giant nuclear power plant and cut all taxes on greener vehicles. These two steps would help immensely. Ive no problem with being greener but we need to make green options cheaper rather than taxing everyone to death or banning/fining people put of behaviour

She has just spent 2 months in the country which is one of the biggest polluters.

The thing about taxes is, they are often necessary (or other legislation) before people will modify their behaviour. Take plastic bag tax for example.

I would be ok with taxes if they were ring fenced for climate initiatives until progress had been made. The reality is too though, that the government is earning no small amount from fossil fuel sales so it is understandable that if that revenue is removed, there will either be a shortfall in the exchequers accounts, or it will have to be raised elsewhere. That's just a simple fact.

KyussB

The entire discussion about emissions per capita is worthless, when not a single country on Earth is doing anything to proportionately prioritize the issue.

That's literally arguing over who is failing to act fast enough, the most. You don't need to agree over which country is worse, when you agree all countries need to reduce drastically - and the current methods of measuring emissions, setting targets for reducing them, and measures for implementing that are ineffective (in scale) by a long way.

The mainstream/'orthodox' view - including among the people who actually want something done - is so unambitious and lacking in coherent backing of a solid big enough plan, that it's tantamount to accepting fig-leaf/ineffective measures.

Until the people who want something done, confront the problems with todays economics and get on board with a significantly different and large scale economic plan (like the Green New Deal...) - especially confronting that the way people are encouraged to view government finances is wrong and utterly dominated by decades of right-leaning economic propaganda that has become the mainstream, making people think there are restrictions on government spending that there aren't (and not even realizing their economic views are subtly right-wing) - until people make all of that their focus of discussion - then the discussion will just always be easily diverted into nonsense, by denialists.

Even a general consensus among scientists and the public on the science is of little use, without a consensus over an ambitious/big-enough plan, and (most importantly) a consensus that there are zero economic problems in funding it - because then governments are going to softball the issue and implement fairly ineffective measures, designed only to 'look' like doing something.

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

Even a general consensus among scientists and the public on the science is of little use, without a consensus over an ambitious/big-enough plan, and (most importantly) a consensus that there are zero economic problems in funding it - because then governments are going to softball the issue and implement fairly ineffective measures, designed only to 'look' like doing something.

I don't know how realistic it is though that we get to a consensus that massive change is going to be made all in one go and so what if it costs X amount.

The reality is that some people don't think there is a problem
Some people don't want to acknowledge there is a problem
Some people can't afford to think about the problem
Some people have other things more important to them than the problem

Look at a country like America and the difficulty they have in managing Health Care, education and gun control. These are all issues which there is a greater consensus currently about there being an issue than the environment concern and yet progress is gradual or non-existent.

In the UK, out of 650 ministers, just one (0.15%), Caroline Lucas is from the Green Party.

We are still at the phase where climate advocates recognize there is a problem, but either industry or governments will present solutions which do not currently exist. That is Greta's message, we need to unite in order to develop the required solutions. I certainly don't have the answers, but I think there needs to be progress made however small.

fly_agaric

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This entire thread is about a swedish girl travelling around rich countries that arent sweden telling them to change their ways...

The thread was about taking a pop at her going off to the UN to deliver this message to all countries' leaders in the place where they gather (whatever "colour" they are in US terms).
The wealthy + technologically advanced countries are going to be the ones who will solve this issue (if it is solved). I'd include China in that.
The US is both one of the most populous countries on Earth and still the largest economy by a distance. Collectively, the EU is also extremely wealthy and has an even larger population than the US.

windy shepard henderson

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Research: To assess the ice mass balance of Antarctica to date.

Methodology: Meta-analysis of 24 independently derived estimates of ice-sheet mass balance

Conclusion: Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone.

Source: NASA, European Space Agency, IMBIE.



Research: To determine how waves might change in the future.

Methodology: Meta-analysis of 10 global wave models from different institutions.

Conclusion: Where warming continues in line with current trends, the models agreed the planet is likely to see significant changes in wave conditions along 50% of the world's coasts leading to changes in erosion.

Sources: UK National Oceanography Centre et al.



Research: What are the causal factors that could explain a past rise in sea levels?

Methodology: Meta-analysis of various global research papers.

Conclusion: The rate of rise in sea levels implied by the Business-as-Usual best-estimate is 3-6 times faster than that experienced over the last 100 years. Most of the contribution is estimated to derive from thermal expansion of the oceans and the increased melting of mountain glaciers.

Source: IPCC



Indeed.



Indeed. Bad planning causes flooding due to building on river flood plains



Research: To determine if rising sea levels contributed to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.

Methodology: Observed climate and sea level trends over the last century used to create surge simulations and models.

Conclusion: Surge simulations suggest that flood elevations would have been 15 to 60 % lower c. 1900 than the conditions observed in 2005. This drastic change suggests that significantly more flood damage occurred in 2005 than would have occurred if sea level and climate conditions had been like those c. 1900.

Sources: Various researchers in US Army, Princeton and Virginia Tech.



Research: To determine the impact of global vulnerability to seal level rises and coastal flooding.

Methodology: Meta-analysis of various research papers and modelling.

Conclusion: Sea levels projected by 2050 are high enough to threaten land currently home to a total of 150 million people to a future permanently below the high tide line.

Sources: Climate Central, Princeton.



Feel free to challenge any of my "scare mongering" with facts.

i am at a loss to this post , are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me

all these tings above that you are pointing out we agree are taking place , just because one faction says its taking place because of climate change and not some other reason like a natural occurrence dose'nt mean to say it cant be challenged

everything in life is there to be challenged , nasa for example put a man on the moon , many people challenge this theory also

i am not denying anything , like most people on here are not denying, we are challenging the commentary on climate change alot of it makes no sense

the main question everyone has here is why are we not targeting the biggest emitters first , like china , india , usa ect if you dont target them first the whole thing is a waste of time

at the moment its too hit and miss , i still dont get how taxing an irish car is going to save the planet in my opinion its an excuse for governments to rake in more money

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

everything in life is there to be challenged , nasa for example put a man on the moon , many people challenge this theory also

An equally absurd challenge. There does not have to be an opposing view just for the sake of it.

i am not denying anything , like most people on here are not denying, we are challenging the commentary on climate change alot of it makes no sense

Just to be clear, throughout this thread there have been several different posters who have challenged there being an issue with the climate.

the main question everyone has here is why are we not targeting the biggest emitters first , like china , india , usa ect if you dont target them first the whole thing is a waste of time

Because, we do not have the control to simply dictate to another country, here, you do this while we do nothing.

at the moment its too hit and miss , i still dont get how taxing an irish car is going to save the planet in my opinion its an excuse for governments to rake in more money

Taxes encourage behavioural change, that's a reality. Doing something such as this allows all 197 signatories of the Paris Accord to come together and say, 'Did you do your bit?' to each other. This makes it a more cohesive effort to enact change in the countries you are talking about.

Professor Moriarty

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

wrote:

i am at a loss to this post , are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me

all these tings above that you are pointing out we agree are taking place , just because one faction says its taking place because of climate change and not some other reason like a natural occurrence dose'nt mean to say it cant be challenged

everything in life is there to be challenged , nasa for example put a man on the moon , many people challenge this theory also

i am not denying anything , like most people on here are not denying, we are challenging the commentary on climate change alot of it makes no sense

the main question everyone has here is why are we not targeting the biggest emitters first , like china , india , usa ect if you dont target them first the whole thing is a waste of time

at the moment its too hit and miss , i still dont get how taxing an irish car is going to save the planet in my opinion its an excuse for governments to rake in more money

Good that you agree with the science. Wrt taxation and climate change, here is a statement signed by:

3554 U.S. Economists
4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve (All)
27 Nobel Laureate Economists
15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers
2 Former Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Treasury

From the statement:

A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary.

And:

A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government.

Let us assume you agree with these economists. If we, as a country, intend to convince fellow human beings in India and China that carbon tax is a necessary way of tackling climate change, then we should do so by example. Otherwise we are hypocritical and will not be taken seriously.

paleoperson

Professor Moriarty could you please learn to use quotes properly, it looks like you've just taken apart the arguments of Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty

paleoperson wrote: »

Professor Moriarty could you please learn to use quotes properly, it looks like you've just taken apart the arguments of Professor Moriarty

It is impossible to take apart my arguments.

high_king

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If we, as a country, intend to convince fellow human beings in India and China that carbon tax is a necessary way of tackling climate change, then we should do so by example. Otherwise we are hypocritical and will not be taken seriously.

I work with both Indians and Chinese, and they are not as gullible as the Irish. They are not going to pay wealthy corporations taxes for them.

Professor Moriarty

high_king wrote: »

I work with both Indians and Chinese, and they are not as gullible as the Irish. They are not going to pay wealthy corporations taxes for them.

I would suggest that everyone, including corporations, pay carbon tax.

high_king

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would suggest that everyone, including corporations, pay carbon tax.

You can suggest all you like, the wealthy and the corporations won't be, but they will be lecturing you on the environment, while you pay theirs for them.

Professor Moriarty

high_king wrote: »

You can suggest all you like, the wealthy and the corporations won't be, but they will be lecturing you on the environment, while you pay theirs for them.

Right. So we just sit on our hands?

high_king

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Right. So we just sit on our hands?

Why do you believe that the only thing that can be done is ordinary people paying more taxes, while corporations and the wealthy get off Scott free as usual ?

Professor Moriarty

high_king wrote: »

Why do you believe that the only thing that can be done is ordinary people paying more taxes, while corporations and the wealthy get off Scott free as usual ?

Um. About three posts up I said this:

"I would suggest that everyone, including corporations, pay carbon tax."