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

Micky 32

easypazz wrote: »

I just find it strange that you are slagging this place off as being a ****hole, you seem to have lived here all your life, you know there is a much better country that you can live in where nobody will dictate to you what you can and can't do but you don't plan going for another 10 years or so.

Seems strange that's all.

But it’s not really any of your business per se and you shouldn’t be so fixated on my decisions.

easypazz

Micky 32 wrote: »

But it’s not really any of your business per se and you shouldn’t be so fixated on my decisions.

Its funny though, you live in a ****hole when you can be somewhere so much better.

weldoninhio

easypazz wrote: »

Its a lot more that just carbon tax on motor fuel.

By 2025 all new cars are supposed to be electric, I expect this to slip but it will happen at a later date

Electricity for your home costs more because renewable supplies cost more.

Government policy is dictating to you on many levels what you can and can't do in relation to carbon taxes.

But you won't be dictated to because you are leaving this ****hole in 10 years time.

Electric cars hahahahaha. All that strip mining and child labour exploitation is great for the environment.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I whizz by it every day on my bike. Im all for congestion charges and keeping cars out of the city.

Point is until politiicians in Dublin do introduce charges rural criticisms about transport should be put on hold. That needs to be sorted first.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes, its far more carbon efficient to live in communities rather than one off car depenedant housing

You are aware quite a number of the population has always lived rurally and work close to their homes... Heres an example farmers but they do need to travel to urban areas and the Massey is not always practical.

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes, its far more carbon efficient to live in communities rather than one off car depenedant housing

The one off house I live in is is 200 years old. Should I knock it before or after I apply to live in some random council estate in Dublin? Wouldn't qualify for one in any case, not that I would want to live there.

Micky 32

easypazz wrote: »

Its funny though, you live in a ****hole when you can be somewhere so much better.

So what are you doing to help the climate, so what sacrifices are you doing at the moment?

Micky 32

Micky 32 wrote: »

So what are you doing to help the climate, so what sacrifices are you doing at the moment?

this isn't even the point, imo

even if someone is lecturing me from a point of indisputably superior moral behaviour, they can, imho, **** away off lecturing me.

self-appointed moral authoritarianism is an absolute curse.

Thelonious Monk

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The one off house I live in is is 200 years old. Should I knock it before or after I apply to live in some random council estate in Dublin? Wouldn't qualify for one in any case, not that I would want to live there.

Yes unless you're a farmer it should be knocked down and the land rewilded. Im not eligible for social housing either i bought mine amongst the proles.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes unless you're a farmer it should be knocked down and the land rewilded. Im not eligible for social housing either i bought mine amongst the proles.

You must be popular with your neighbours when you use a derogatory term like prole to describe them, although i'm guessing you don't have the 'cajones' to use that word off line.Gives me a warm feeling knowing I will never have to endure living in a box surrounded by other boxes inhabited by people such as yourself and also my children will not meet an educator of your 'standard'.

easypazz

Micky 32 wrote: »

So what are you doing to help the climate, so what sacrifices are you doing at the moment?

Very little tbh.

Prawns in the restaurant flown in from south America? Check

Diesel vehicles? Check

Big steak once or twice a week? Check

Big coal fire tonight? Check

Fly 10 hours to far away places? Check

I believe that our behaviour is doing enormous damage but I doubt the ability is there on a global scale to solve it.

The population increases by 200000 people a day, so even if each individual cuts back on their carbon output a bit the population growth will absorb the saving and total carbon output won't start to decline.

We need a mass cull.

Thelonious Monk

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You must be popular with your neighbours when you use a derogatory term like prole to describe them, although i'm guessing you don't have the 'cajones' to use that word off line.Gives me a warm feeling knowing I will never have to endure living in a box surrounded by other boxes inhabited by people such as yourself and also my children will not meet an educator of your 'standard'.

More and more people are living in boxes in the cities and we're quite happy to be surrounded by other people, we are social animals after all.

Plumbthedepths

easypazz wrote: »

We need a mass cull.

So to loosely quote you ' why are you still here'?

Niallof9

quokula wrote: »

From that article:



The increasing population of Uganda is not an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels in Ireland.

While population growth is a problem, it's tends to balance out as countries develop and as contraception and sex education become more prevalent. Indeed the trend is downwards in some fully developed countries like Germany and Japan as people aren't having enough kids to maintain existing numbers - this is something that has been happening naturally without much need for intervention (in fact the opposite is needed as immigration needs to be encouraged to service the ageing population)

If everyone was consuming 50% less (and Ugandans currently have a carbon footprint of less than 1% of Irish people), then the population of the planet could double without impacting the environment any more than it currently is. So while population is not a non-issue, it's not the area where most drastic action is needed right now.

Did i say it was? the population of earth is out of control. In 1989 it was 5.5 billion. Uganda, Kenya, Ethopia, it doesn't ****ing matter.

Thats the issue thought its not balancing out at all. That article directly qoutes an African president encouraging people to ignore contraception.

Its the elephant in the room and studies have shown it thus. It cannot be sustained no matter what you argue. It goes hand in hand with the climate crisis.

While some fertility has gone down, deaths have dropped as well.

Micky 32

easypazz wrote: »

Very little tbh.

Prawns in the restaurant flown in from south America? Check

Diesel vehicles? Check

Big steak once or twice a week? Check

Big coal fire tonight? Check

Fly 10 hours to far away places? Check

I believe that our behaviour is doing enormous damage but I doubt the ability is there on a global scale to solve it.

The population increases by 200000 people a day, so even if each individual cuts back on their carbon output a bit the population growth will absorb the saving and total carbon output won't start to decline.

We need a mass cull.

At least your honest ;-).At least Diesel cars tend to produce less C02 than their petrol counterparts.

fergus1001

she was carried across the atlantic by the boat Sailing La Vagabond

they have a youtube channel lookiing forward to seeing if greta is actually ok when she is not infront of the media or not

Sailing La vagabonde Link

Thelonious Monk

How come people in one off houses dont believe in climate change but city folk do? There seems to be a rural urban divide on the matter of environment and consumption.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

How come people in one off houses dont believe in climate change but city folk do? There seems to be a rural urban divide on the matter of environment and consumption.

I live in a one house and fully accept that climate change exists as I stated earlier in this thread, I'm just curious why you feel a condescending attitude gives weight to your opinions? It really doesn't tbh it actually makes it easier to view your posts as nutjob rants.

The gray bird

Mad rich tea

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes, its far more carbon efficient to live in communities rather than one off car depenedant housing

Is it? There are much greater densities of all types of vehicles in built up areas - with private vehicles making up the majority of those on the roads. The out of town shopping centres and the bulk of the population living in distant suburbs means that most cities including Dublin are a nightmare for any form of transport and those living there. And that's just one of the major problems of city living.

Poor air and water quality, insufficient water availability, waste-disposal problems, and high energy consumption are exacerbated by the increasing population density and demands of urban environments. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/urban-threats/

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes unless you're a farmer it should be knocked down and the land rewilded. Im not eligible for social housing either i bought mine amongst the proles.

Where would you accommodate the displaced rural dwellers after you release the wolves and bears, what's the plan? Can you summerise how this mass forced relocation of people should be undertaken? Should they be forced to leave by a combination of punitive taxation and coersion? Or should they just be rounded up and their property confiscated for destruction so rewilding can commence?

Professor Moriarty

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Where would you accommodate the displaced rural dwellers after you release the wolves and bears, what's the plan? Can you summerise how this mass forced relocation of people should be undertaken? Should they be forced to leave by a combination of punitive taxation and coersion? Or should they just be rounded up and their property confiscated for destruction so rewilding can commence?

Obviously, the rural dwellers would be food for the wolves and bears.

But, rewilding aside, the most urgent task facing mankind is for mankind to acknowledge the fact that man-made climate change presents an imminent existential threat. The next task is for mankind to decide how to stop that existential threat from becoming a reality. If mankind doesn't do that, it's just a question of time before mankind doesn't exist.

easypazz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Obviously, the rural dwellers would be food for the wolves and bears.

But, rewilding aside, the most urgent task facing mankind is for mankind to acknowledge the fact that man-made climate change presents an imminent existential threat. The next task is for mankind to decide how to stop that existential threat from becoming a reality. If mankind doesn't do that, it's just a question of time before mankind doesn't exist.

I don't quite think its quite that bad. If there is mass human depopulation due to climate change then pollution will decrease and the planet will recover.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Obviously, the rural dwellers would be food for the wolves and bears.

But, rewilding aside, the most urgent task facing mankind is for mankind to acknowledge the fact that man-made climate change presents an imminent existential threat. The next task is for mankind to decide how to stop that existential threat from becoming a reality. If mankind doesn't do that, it's just a question of time before mankind doesn't exist.

resource wars, take out africa first, hope that technology and the time bought by this action buys us enough time for greta the posh white swedish girl to manage her irrational panic attacks

if shes still unhappy, i reckon south america next. id be wary enough of the chinese and the indians, tbh.

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

resource wars, take out africa first, hope that technology and the time bought by this action buys us enough time for greta the posh white swedish girl to manage her irrational panic attacks

if shes still unhappy, i reckon south america next. id be wary enough of the chinese and the indians, tbh.

I think she'll be alright. I doubt she gives a tuppence about your ad hominems.

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

I think she'll be alright. I doubt she gives a tuppence about your ad hominems.

always amuses me, this transplantation of any criticism of a public figure on a message board to make it somehow parallel to actually addressing them as if they were a poster.

its not realllllly how it works, is it?

Professor Moriarty

easypazz wrote: »

I don't quite think its quite that bad. If there is mass human depopulation due to climate change then pollution will decrease and the planet will recover.

Many climatologists would argue that once a certain tipping point is reached that climate change will have a self-perpetuating snowball effect.

But let's assume you are right. If we depend solely on climate change to depopulate the planet to a point where pollution no longer causes climate change, then what kind of world do you think that would be? What of civilisation? Peace? That would be a catastrophic scenario.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

resource wars, take out africa first, hope that technology and the time bought by this action buys us enough time for greta the posh white swedish girl to manage her irrational panic attacks

if shes still unhappy, i reckon south america next. id be wary enough of the chinese and the indians, tbh.

Yeah, let's nuke everyone else and we'll be fine. What could possibly go wrong?

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah, let's nuke everyone else and we'll be fine. What could possibly go wrong?

ah no i wouldnt advocate nukes, its environmentally unfriendly

bayonets.

the line-caught equivalent of depopulation. practically organic.

Tell me how

[Deleted User] wrote: »

resource wars, take out africa first, hope that technology and the time bought by this action buys us enough time for greta the posh white swedish girl to manage her irrational panic attacks

if shes still unhappy, i reckon south america next. id be wary enough of the chinese and the indians, tbh.

You do realise that Greta has probably the largest volume if academic reference to support her mindset which you refer to as 'irrational panic attacks'.

I think it's not understanding that which must be seen as irrational at this point.