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

joe40

SafeSurfer wrote: »

To what end? You are avoiding answering. Why are we told we must reduce carbon emissions?

To reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change. You know that is what I meant.
If you don't accept that, that is fine but I'm not interested in that discussion right now.

I simply posed a question for people who do claim to accept it as a reality but seem to be opposed to most efforts to mitigate the effects.

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

I know this particular thread is about Greta thurberg sailing the Atlantic, and on that singular issue I have reservations.But leaving aside that issue plenty of people, yourself included seem to be critical of all initiatives or ideas to reduce carbon emissions.If you are not a "climate change denying conspiracy theorist" (your words) how should we face this problem.Are there any suggestions you would support.
It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and mock everything that people do, or alternatively despair at everything because Ireland is so small we can't possibly have an effect.I understand objections to a certain extent, rich people with private jets talking about reducing carbon emissions is galling. Hypocrisy is hard to take.So my question is straightforward, what would you like to see happen to help reduce carbon emissions.No one thing will solve everything but just one initiative that you would support. No whataboutery, just one thing you support.

Not so. I am not going to derail the thread and go down the which-side-fence sitting debate pointing out of individual posters as whether climate deniers / evil facist / screamers. And yes everyone should aim to reduce the carbon footprint that's a given. The issue of greta is not central to this belief in climate change or otherwise imo. Not having a go but tbh I find the whole 'give us a sign ' personal type interrogations that are often found in these threads to be eerily reminiscent of early witch finding theory- where witches were interrogated and searched for signs of heresy and god forbid witchcraft ...

Of note the words "climate change denying conspiracy theorist" are not mine - I quoted them directly from the previous poster who bizarrely believed this thread was largely made up of same ...

SafeSurfer

joe40 wrote: »

To reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change. You know that is what I meant.
If you don't accept that, that is fine but I'm not interested in that discussion right now.

I simply posed a question for people who do claim to accept it as a reality but seem to be opposed to most efforts to mitigate the effects.

You are not interested in discussing questions you can’t answer but are happy to pose questions to others in this discussion.

What is the optimum surface temperature of the earth which we are aiming for?

Stevieluvsye

joe40 wrote: »

To reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

If ever i saw a "better run to google" response

joe40

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

If ever i saw a "better run to google" response

Seriously, this whole discussion is about climate change, what did I get from Google. I'm far from an expert on this topic, but do you think I have never heard that term before.

I asked a simple question and the response so far has been deflection and insults.

Some claim to be fair minded here interested in discussion, I would like to hear from them.

Stevieluvsye

joe40 wrote: »

Seriously, this whole discussion is about climate change, what did I get from Google. I'm far from an expert on this topic, but do you think I have never heard that term before.

I asked a simple question and the response so far has been deflection and insults.

Some claim to be fair minded here interested in discussion, I would like to hear from them.

Your inability to use a ? in any of your posts relating to questions you are asking suggests to me you did in fact Google that term.

However, i do agree the World as a whole needs to do more and they are going about it the wrong way by using this idiot from Norway.

Get Trump on board first of all and then start working with China and India............

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

Seriously, this whole discussion is about climate change, what did I get from Google. I'm far from an expert on this topic, but do you think I have never heard that term before.I asked a simple question and the response so far has been deflection and insults.Some claim to be fair minded here interested in discussion, I would like to hear from them.

Nope it's not. The thread is about gretas crusade to the US and the whole dog and pony show which goes with it - with many different issues being discussed.

Whether a poster believes in gretas extreme doomsday scenario or perhaps prefers to err on the side of the IPCC or whatever position they choose is irrelevant. A whole bunch of posters have pointed this out and yet it persists. Not being a fan of greta does not equate to being pro or anti climate change. End of story.

joe40

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Your inability to use a ? in any of your posts relating to questions you are asking suggests to me you did in fact Google that term.

However, i do agree the World as a whole needs to do more and they are going about it the wrong way by using this idiot from Norway.

Get Trump on board first of all and then start working with China and India............

I have seen it all. I'm typing on a phone and you're judging my knowledge based on punctuation.

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

Nope it's not. The thread is about gretas crusade to the US and the whole dog and pony show which goes with it - with many different issues being discussed.

Whether a poster believes in gretas extreme doomsday scenario or perhaps prefers to err on the side of the IPCC or whatever position they choose is irrelevant. A whole bunch of posters have pointed this out and yet it persists. Not being a fan of greta does not equate to being pro or anti climate change. End of story.

I fully agree, and that is why I specifically asked to leave the singular issue of Greta aside and focus on other ideas or iniatives that might work.
I'm not trying to pigeon hole anyone just interested in what people think might work.

Obviously if you're of the opinion that carbon emissions aren't a problem, then nothing needs to be done. Thats fine but not what my question was about.

Stevieluvsye

joe40 wrote: »

I have seen it all. I'm typing on a phone and you're judging my knowledge based on punctuation.

Hit the "123" bottom left on your screen and the ? is just above space bar

joe40

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Hit the "123" bottom left on your screen and the ? is just above space bar

I'm going to assume you're not been sarcastic. I know where the ? Is. I'm just very slow typing on the phone

Stevieluvsye

joe40 wrote: »

I'm going to assume you're not been sarcastic. I know where the ? Is. I'm just very slow typing on the phone

I was

Eric Cartman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Maybe I'm out of the loop on this stuff. Didn't realise it was a political belief. So if someone is a Republican they have a default Republican view on climate change.

its a manifestation, every climate change solution proposed is politically charged, Greta , the Green Party and all the other loudest voices in the room are only proposing solutions that disproportionately or wholly impact middle and upper class white people, western companies and western cultural norms. Attacking those solutions is co-opted by detractors as anti climate , calling people deniers etc... when in reality its a political value preservation.

Whether people like it or not, Capitalist corporations have done more for environmental preservation than the left ever have or will. USB sticks have saved more trees than protesting, the internet and video conferencing and email have lowered road and air miles covered more than a 'campaign' ever did.

Lets allow the market to innovate solutions, not just tax those who already pay too much of the tax burden.

Pa ElGrande

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Every thread, left right. Sigh.

The breakdown does not follow the old left/right paradigm. The issue breaks down along the lines of social conservatism and social liberalism.


There is also a correlation with income as social liberals tend to dominate the higher income percentiles and social conservatives tend to be in the lower income percentiles and it is why the CAGW hypothesis resonates in the West and not where incomes are much lower and there is not so much time for naval gazing.


Anyway the ground is being laid for yet more carbon taxes in this years budget.


Here you have a clear example or this electric cars for the rich and buses for the working poor.

While a carbon tax can incentivise behaviour change, without real alternatives, it will have an unjust impact on low-income households and those with limited transport options.

Therefore, existing revenue from carbon taxes should be immediately ring-fenced and invested in public transport and infrastructure which supports climate transition projects.
<snip>
To meet the CAP target of 950,000 electric vehicles by 2030, we need to accelerate the roll-out of a national fast-charging network, particularly in regional areas where there are few public transport options - aware that this will put an enormous demand on the electricity grid which was configured for the technologies of a generation ago.

source

Problem is the working poor live in suburbia (in new speak that is "people who get up early in the morning") depend on the car for mobility. The rich in this country via their proxies like An Taisce and The Georgian society actively block high density housing where the public transport links happen to be but they want fast charging networks for their jaunt in the country to their holiday homes.

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

I fully agree, and that is why I specifically asked to leave the singular issue of Greta aside and focus on other ideas or iniatives that might work.I'm not trying to pigeon hole anyone just interested in what people think might work.Obviously if you're of the opinion that carbon emissions aren't a problem, then nothing needs to be done. Thats fine but not what my question was about.

Then I'd respectfully advise you set up yet another "which side of the fence are you supporting" climate thread or whatever then because it's not what this threads about. And god knows but there are literally dozens of those already which endlessly discuss possible solutions and utilise pointy sticks for the purposes of who is the most virtually virtuous etc.

But before ye go exactly where is it that you imagined a mention that carbon emissions "aren't a problem"? Second time you've said I've stated a position without it being backed up. Tbh there much be too much Co2 in the air or something

ForestFire

joe40 wrote: »

The target is reduction of carbon emissions.

The target is absolutely critical to any answer given for this.
We are told the world is doomed if we do not reduce CO2 emissions, so lets see how we can save it....

It the target is 2% reduction, then paper straws, Recycling better, a few Electric cars, no meat on a Firday's and 1 less plane trip per year will be grand.

If the target is 80% reduction, then enforced population control (1 Child per couple), Ban all meat products, Bad electronics that do not last at least 5-10 years, Limit and reduce flights available to travel (Prices will increase and companies cannot expand and will fail). Change electric supply entirely to to Renewable and Nuclear (As it will be needed).

Of course this will lead to sever economic pressure and collapse of capitalism, with no money for the ever growing pensioners in society, so we will need a few more things as below...


Maybe introduce Voluntary Euthanasia for anyone over 70 (But this number will reduce over time), and eventually the voluntary bit will be removed, and will replace Palliative care where recovery is not likely.

Oh and don't forget to send the list to China and Indai by post for them to consider too......


Now if the reduction is in the middle some where (Which is why we need to know), maybe we can discuss something achievable that is more realistic??

P.s. The above is supposed to be dramatic, not realistic and over-hyped for a purpose.


Oh....sorry forgot one very important and essential point that is valid in all cases or none of this has a chance of working...

Increases Taxes

Thelonious Monk

For people worrying about India and China look at the absolute state of Ireland right now with our own farming practices wrecking the environment. We need to sort our own mess out too.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/farming-practices-harm-70-of-habitats-report-1.3993382?mode=amp

Hector Savage

And this is what PISSES me off!!!

I will be punished and taxed for this and I live (i think) a low carbon footprint life

I don't drive (have a licence but have never owned a car), take public transport.
I've had the same phone since 2015.
I'm frugal with clothes, wear the **** out of them for as long as possible - shoes too, wear them till they fall off me.
Eat little meat...
fly maybe once a year back home ...

If they wanna tax people, tax the person that wants to buy a 192 Range Rover sport ....
add it to the vehicle and depend it on the class , more for SUV etc ... but of course they won't do this, they'll just tax everyone to maximise the robbery - and of course the money will only fall to the corrupt.

The rich will still be able to go around in their SUVs and fly every 2nd weekend.


So f*ck this , it's all a ploy to STEAL YOUR MONEY!!!


But hey, I'm just a climate change denier.

SafeSurfer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

For people worrying about India and China look at the absolute state of Ireland right now with our own farming practices wrecking the environment. We need to sort our own mess out too.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/farming-practices-harm-70-of-habitats-report-1.3993382?mode=amp

This report from a government that signed up to displacing Irish produced beef by importing slash and burn beef from the Amazon rainforest.

The state itself has always been the biggest polluter around the country.

think the thread has been somewhat unfair to joe40s question

in the spirit of not wanting to lump everyone from the other side of the debate into the worst category possible ive no prob saying id be happy to pay higher taxes if the marginal figures were ringfenced for public transport, efficient refitting of buildings, greenways, charger networks, etc etc

im not rabid against taxes like some seem to be on this side of the greta debate.

im all for continuous examination of our ways of living and what we can do better.

but like most whose knees jerk against greta and that bandwagon, i resent soi-disant experts running ahead of the legitimate societal methods of resource management and legislative control and claiming a moral or any other right to do so.

if you think that your issue is critical enough to jump the priority queue in the programme for govt, you have a vote and you have as many platforms as you like to campaign.

if the votes aint with you and the platforms give others a voice to disagree then hey welcome to society. where do you want to go from here?

Stevieluvsye

Deleted User wrote: »

think the thread has been somewhat unfair to joe40s question

in the spirit of not wanting to lump everyone from the other side of the debate into the worst category possible ive no prob saying id be happy to pay higher taxes if the marginal figures were ringfenced for public transport, efficient refitting of buildings, greenways, charger networks, etc etc

im not rabid against taxes like some seem to be on this side of the greta debate.

im all for continuous examination of our ways of living and what we can do better.

but like most whose knees jerk against greta and that bandwagon, i resent soi-disant experts running ahead of the legitimate societal methods of resource management and legislative control and claiming a moral or any other right to do so.

if you think that your issue is critical enough to jump the priority queue in the programme for govt, you have a vote and you have as many platforms as you like to campaign.

if the votes aint with you and the platforms give others a voice to disagree then hey welcome to society. where do you want to go from here?

But the thread is about Greta on a jolly up as per title

Stevieluvsye

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

But the thread is about Greta on a jolly up as per title

i know but its hardly completely unrelated and i think joe is one that has engaged fairly enough throughout

if the question/challenge is to demonstrate that cynicism of any particular action isnt opposition to a wider goal, im happy to throw the hand up

but like at the same time I'll always argue the case for cynicism!

Stevieluvsye

Deleted User wrote: »

i know but its hardly completely unrelated and i think joe is one that has engaged fairly enough throughout

if the question/challenge is to demonstrate that cynicism of any particular action isnt opposition to a wider goal, im happy to throw the hand up

but like at the same time I'll always argue the case for cynicism!

Tongue in cheek my post was.

The thread has digressed to all different agendas.

ForestFire

Deleted User wrote: »

think the thread has been somewhat unfair to joe40s question

No one is being unfair, Its the question that is unfair, as you cannot answer a question if you do not know what you are trying to achieve....

Yes we can do things better anyway and I'm all for that, but remember, this is not just about incremental improvements, its about saving the planet urgently (Or at least taking more of our money through taxes to be wasted).

For example...

If I told you I need to build a children's Hospital, but did not tell you how many children's its needs to cater for, where it should be built, how people would travel to it etc...would you or anyone else be able to do it and estimate the cost??

Of wait.........We tried that didn't we:o...but the point is still valid, you need to know what you are trying to achieve (Target)

joe40

[Deleted User] wrote: »

think the thread has been somewhat unfair to joe40s question

in the spirit of not wanting to lump everyone from the other side of the debate into the worst category possible ive no prob saying id be happy to pay higher taxes if the marginal figures were ringfenced for public transport, efficient refitting of buildings, greenways, charger networks, etc etc

im not rabid against taxes like some seem to be on this side of the greta debate.

im all for continuous examination of our ways of living and what we can do better.

but like most whose knees jerk against greta and that bandwagon, i resent soi-disant experts running ahead of the legitimate societal methods of resource management and legislative control and claiming a moral or any other right to do so.

if you think that your issue is critical enough to jump the priority queue in the programme for govt, you have a vote and you have as many platforms as you like to campaign.

if the votes aint with you and the platforms give others a voice to disagree then hey welcome to society. where do you want to go from here?

I would agree with all that. Ultimately western governments are democracies so any real change will have to have widespread public support. Otherwise government will just be voted out.
Public support is improving and environmental issues are becoming more mainstream in the electorate. No longer the preserve of the green party.
For any politician to make an impact they must first get elected
That is why on a personal level I think the Greta thurberg sailing the Atlantic was counter productive. It was just a publicity stunt and an open goal for people who constantly want to ridicule all efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

However awareness is also important, she is no eco messiah, but she has promoted a message that seems to have gained resonance with a section of the population.

SafeSurfer

“Will Ireland Survive 2050?”
A new show being rolled out for RTE’s autumn schedule.

“Climate change and it’s influence on Ireland is set to dominate the agenda for autumn schedule on RTE” - Journal.ie

A propaganda campaign for more taxes from the organization that campaigns for more taxes to fund its propaganda for more taxes.

There is an opportunity here for investigating RTE’s own carbon footprint like flying reporters and camera people half way round the world for a 20 second news piece.

hetuzozaho

SafeSurfer wrote: »

“Will Ireland Survive 2050?”
A new show being rolled out for RTE’s autumn schedule.

“Climate change and it’s influence on Ireland is set to dominate the agenda for autumn schedule on RTE” - Journal.ie

A propaganda campaign for more taxes from the organization that campaigns for more taxes to fund its propaganda for more taxes.

There is an opportunity here for investigating RTE’s own carbon footprint like flying reporters and camera people half way round the world for a 20 second news piece.

Are people suggesting that the United Nations Climate Change Summit that Greta is sailing to is propaganda to allow governments to tax us more?

joe40

ForestFire wrote: »

No one is being unfair, Its the question that is unfair, as you cannot answer a question if you do not know what you are trying to achieve....

Yes we can do things better anyway and I'm all for that, but remember, this is not just about incremental improvements, its about saving the planet urgently (Or at least taking more of our money through taxes to be wasted).

For example...

If I told you I need to build a children's Hospital, but did not tell you how many children's its needs to cater for, where it should be built, how people would travel to it etc...would you or anyone else be able to do it and estimate the cost??

Of wait.........We tried that didn't we:o...but the point is still valid, you need to know what you are trying to achieve (Target)

How can an individual answer that question. I don't know the exact figure, no one does there is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the global climate will react to increased CO2 levels.

There are international agreements which have laid out targets, we can take those as a starting point.

SafeSurfer

hetuzozaho wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

“Will Ireland Survive 2050?”
A new show being rolled out for RTE’s autumn schedule.

“Climate change and it’s influence on Ireland is set to dominate the agenda for autumn schedule on RTE” - Journal.ie

A propaganda campaign for more taxes from the organization that campaigns for more taxes to fund its propaganda for more taxes.

There is an opportunity here for investigating RTE’s own carbon footprint like flying reporters and camera people half way round the world for a 20 second news piece.

Are people suggesting that the United Nations Climate Change Summit that Greta is sailing to is propaganda to allow governments to tax us more?

Are people suggesting that you are a wife beater?

Eric Cartman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Are people suggesting that the United Nations Climate Change Summit that Greta is sailing to is propaganda to allow governments to tax us more?

in itself - no, will every policy agreed require more taxation - yes, are people intentionally suggesting tax increases and using climate as an excuse - yes.