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

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. That link to another of your extremly long winded posts says nothing about what this "massive mobilization of labour and resources in the economy, starting immediately, and redirecting them into efforts at fighting climate change" are going to be doing.

So are they to be given shovels or dusters? What exactly is this massive mobilised labour force going to be doing exactly?

The unstated argument behind your post: "There is nothing all of these workers can do to bring down carbon emissions..."

The posters in this thread have been debating shitloads of different solutions for doing exactly that - take your pick...

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

welcome to discussion forums

So you really think imagintive projections such as these are discussion?

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

.. They're not willing to change or do anything because they don't care about the future or the planet. I would imagine some of these guys have kids (I don't), so it actually beggars belief that they don't care. And the fact they don't care about it or want to do anything makes it even more weird that Greta annoys these grown men so much.

I can lend you a dictionary if you would like ...

Btw why the apparent sexism? I'm damn sure there's representation of both sexes discussing the topic here ...

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

That claim about economic benefits is not credible.

The religious language (denialists) is not helping the debate either.

Your counter-claim is lacking even an argument.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Your counter-claim is lacking even an argument.

I'd disagree. The poster is spot on with his comment.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The unstated argument behind your post: "There is nothing all of these workers can do to bring down carbon emissions...The posters in this thread have been debating shitloads of different solutions for doing exactly that - take your pick...

Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. Them's your words. I would like to know exactly what you think this massive mobilised army of workers will be doing? It's that simple.

The only one talking of massive mobilisation of anyone is yourself...

And just in case you reckon you are on yet another 'climate change' rant thread - see the thread title for the actual topic under discussion...

Thelonious Monk

ForestFire wrote: »

wow unbelievable, now you won't discuss valid points because people thanked a post? Maybe they thanked it because they aer happy for that poster in his choice?

Also not all posters thanked it you know, so that's a great way to generalise and all posts and not debate.

I did not thank it, not that it makes a different.

Would you prefer us all to review posts people thanked?

I just find it sad that some people don't want to stop the current trajectory of the world being a big polluted mess devoid of any nature

ForestFire

KyussB wrote: »

What is it that you're unclear on? There are no lack of plans for how to tranistion economies into being zero emissions and carbon neutral. What I've posted describes the economic polices needed to enact this at a scale large enough to have a fighting chance of achieving this by 2030, if we're serious about it.

If you want to talk about the macroeconomic problems, the policies needed to enact all of this at the right scale - I'm your man.

If you want to divert what I'm discussing into debating over the thousands of different technical plans for eliminating carbon emissions: There are endless plans for this, this area is not the problem - the area of politics, particularly economic policy is the problem.

I'm trying to elevate the discussion beyond debating the minutiae of technical solutions to climate change - all posters should be able to agree, that we generally have a pretty good and wide/diverse idea of the range of technical work that needs to be done, to bring down carbon emissions - the problem I would like people to debate, what my posts are focusing on: Since we know what to do, lets solve the problem of getting it enacted at a scale big enough to arrest climate change.

That is the no.1 problem. My posts explain the big picture, of how to enact the technical-solutions/details, at a scale that is big enough to actually seriously tackle the problem.

Can you post a link to any of this. It's not in this thread as far as I remember, so would be interested in looking at this grand plan, because I agree that fundamental shift is required in society, economics and political to have any real effect.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

I'd disagree. The poster is spot on with his comment.

His post visibly doesn't have an argument, for stating why what is said is not credible - so it's a bit thick to disagree that it lacks even an argument.

Man, I don't miss the shit that counts for 'debate' on Boards...

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. Them's your words. I would like to know exactly what you think this massive mobilised army of workers will be doing? It's that simple.

The only one talking of massive mobilisation of anyone is yourself...

If the goal is to eliminate carbon emissiosn, what the fuck do you think they'd be doing?

I mean there are shitloads of people in this thread, discussing a mass variety of ways for achieving that...

KyussB

ForestFire wrote: »

Can you post a link to any of this. It's not in this thread as far as I remember, so would be interested in looking at this grand plan, because I agree that fundamental shift is required in society, economics and political to have any real effect.

A good outline is this - though I would argue even this doesn't go far enough:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Your counter-claim is lacking even an argument.

I can’t see anything to argue against. Your talking about some plan that does not seem to exist.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

His post visibly doesn't have an argument, for stating why what is said is not credible - so it's a bit thick to disagree that it lacks even an argument.

Man, I don't miss the shit that counts for 'debate' on Boards...

Wrong. The poster clearly and succinctly pointed out the two main issues with your very long winded comment. Which has also nothing to do with the subject of the thread unless you are just looking for a soapbox...

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

If the goal is to eliminate carbon emissiosn, what the fuck do you think they'd be doing?

I mean there are shitloads of people in this thread, discussing a mass variety of ways for achieving that...

I've no 'fuking' idea - so that's what I've asked you - is this massive mobilization of labour going to be digging holes or something?

This thread is abouts gretas voyage to the new world. I've yet to see a list of jobs for any army of mobilised labour off the back of that

So yeah an answer would be good - if you are going to claim this is necessary or whatever.

Kimsang

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If you look a page or two back a response to my post said that they don't want to do anything about it or change anything because they're only here for 70/80 years and they don't care. All the people arguing against you here thanked it.

Your summation of the post is pretty unfair in that it lacks nuance.

The caveats of 'people who have babies do the most damage to the environment' was certainly in the reply. It's like arguing why would I recycle my waste to slow down climate change since most people are just throwing out their waste.

99problems1 wrote: »

Of all the solutions touted so far as being realistic I would actually prefer to just continue on as is. I am on this planet for 70/80 years at most. Should I offer to lower my living standards, increase hardship and stress just to slow down something that's inevitable?

How about you aim to halve the population? Wouldn't that be the best thing?

People have babies despite knowing the infinite impact that will have on the environment yet it's meat eaters and farmers that are demonised.

I see the argument being why all the blame on meat eaters and farmers, when people that have babies are really doing the biggest harm to the environment. Would you disagree with this point?

recedite

KyussB wrote: »

A good outline is this - though I would argue even this doesn't go far enough:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/

The scientific community is telling us in no uncertain terms that we have less than 11 years left to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, if we are going to leave this planet healthy and habitable for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations. As rising temperatures and extreme weather create health emergencies, drive land loss and displacement, destroy jobs, and threaten livelihoods

The end is nigh!
Now that's the kind of doomsday prediction that might scare a kid with assburgers.


Bernie proposes a 3 pronged solution
1. Electrify everything, get rid of oil and gas.
2. Get rid of nuclear.
3. Govt. grants for everybody.


I see two main problems with this. Where's all the money going to come from, and where's all the electricity going to come from?

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

I've no 'fuking' idea - so that's what I've asked you - is this massive mobilization of labour going to be digging holes or something?

This thread is abouts gretas voyage to the new world. I've yet to see a list of jobs for any army of mobilised labour off the back of that

So yeah an answer would be good - if you are going to claim this is necessary or whatever.

The 'digging holes' argument that gets thrown around in discussions like this, is an argument that there is no work that can be done to reduce carbon emissions. You'll need to back up that argument with proof.

My whole set of arguments presuppose that there is plentiful work to be done, to arrest carbon emissions - backed up by the numerous things people have debated in this thread, and in the links/arguments I've provided, that would reduce emissions - if you can't agree with that basic presupposition (which should be easily agreeable), then stop wasting both of our time.

Greta is all about mounting a proper response to climate change - which fits perfectly with this.

Blueshoe

I'm just one man.
What can I do?

Tbh anyone suggesting people not have kids for the sake of the climate should be immediately disregarded IMO..

is_that_so

KyussB wrote: »

Poster A: *Presents solutions*
Poster B in reply to A: Well, what are the solutions then? :rolleyes:

The denialists aims, in order of priority, are to:
1: Avoid discussing climate change altogether - divert the topic into anything other than this (such as alleged hypocrisy of Greta).

2: If they have to talk about it, debate whether or not it's an actual real problem (with a bias towards stating it's not a problem), instead of debating it is a real/valid issue.

3: If they have to acknowledge it as a real issue, pretend there are no solutions - if faced with actual solutions, continue saying "there are no solutions" as if nothing was said, with the unstated position behind that being "that disagrees with my political/ideological views so I'm going to lie and pretend no solutions were presented"

4: If they have to debate solutions, keep the discussion at a microscopic level, debating heatedly, individual solutions to very minor/individual issues that do not tackle the big picture.

5: If any solutions tackle the macroeconomic problems, persistently declare them as impractical/impossible (because this is the heart of the debate, the danger zone that threatens the interests of the powerful/wealthy) - divide posters along ideological lines - and bring it all the way down to Capitalist vs Communist dog whistling and howling, persistently painting posters into views they don't subscribe to.

It's a bloody tired script.

What is this supposed to bring to anything? That's your second pile of extended waffle. And yet you can't even see it. Present some actual solutions and stop revelling in your own brand of cliched self-indulgent repartee because it just looks like a very bad essay.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The 'digging holes' argument that gets thrown around in discussions like this, is an argument that there is no work that can be done to reduce carbon emissions. You'll need to back up that argument with proof.My whole set of arguments presuppose that there is plentiful work to be done, to arrest carbon emissions - backed up by the numerous things people have debated in this thread, and in the links/arguments I've provided, that would reduce emissions - if you can't agree with that basic presupposition (which should be easily agreeable), then stop wasting both of our time.Greta is all about mounting a proper response to climate change - which fits perfectly with this.

Nope - not stated 'there is no work'

"Digging holes" is not literal - it was simply used as a figurative example to help you understand the question. So now that is clear - you can stop avoiding the issue and now provide an answer as to exactly what this "massive mobilization of labour  is going to be doing.

Do try and keep it focused if possible and no going off on bizarre tangents.

Btw to digress off your manifesto - Greta et al appears to be little more than a dog and pony show but thats already been detailed...

is_that_so

Blueshoe wrote: »

I'm just one man.
What can I do?

More than you are doing? It starts there.

Blueshoe

is_that_so wrote: »

More than you are doing? It starts there.

Are you in politics?
That was a real political zero substance answer

ForestFire

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh anyone suggesting people not have kids for the sake of the climate should be immediately disregarded IMO..

Why, do you not agree that an overall population reduction will help reduce emissions of co2?

Okay maybe no kids is not feasible but why not a 1 or 2 child rule?

Maybe the people who choose not to have kids could sell there slot (OFFSET ) to someone who want an extra child and can afford it.

China had a 1 child policy for a long time and at least there was no kind of mass protest from it that led to anything.

Of course, this policy would probably not fit with capitalism, and we would have to manage an ageing population for a number of years until it rebalanced.

I see this as one Huge step the world could take, but is anyone going to suggest or enforce it?

And I say this from a position that we are told we must act to save the world and this is true, so why not look at extremis measures that are needed.

Also, this may allow me to keep my Sunday peppered filet steak:o

Kimsang

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh anyone suggesting people not have kids for the sake of the climate should be immediately disregarded IMO..

That was China's entire 1 child policy. :pac:

I don't think anyone here is saying that(correct me if i'm wrong).. The argument is more akin to saying why would you try to clean a wall with a toothbrush while someone is paining it with a paintbrush?

Each human expels about 1/2 tonne of Co2 every year into the atmosphere before you even factor in their carbon footprint. How much Co2 would be offset by switching from eating meat to going vegetarian?

is_that_so

Blueshoe wrote: »

Are you in politics?
That was a real political zero substance answer

Nah it's a suggestion. It's my thing!:)

Dr. Bre

Ask not what the climate can do for you - ask what you can do for the climate ..

Thelonious Monk

Kimsang wrote: »

I see the argument being why all the blame on meat eaters and farmers, when people that have babies are really doing the biggest harm to the environment. Would you disagree with this point?

I don't disagree with that, but Leo can't even say he's cutting down on meat without being ridiculed, never mind asking people to have less children, it's more realistic for now to say hey let's have less cattle in Ireland, or anywhere in the world, and rewild some of the land, give it back to nature. If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature.
We could still have beef farmers in Ireland, just not every Tom, Dick and Harry outside any urban population having some kind of a herd.
But we would have to cut down on meat, and the amount of meat we export, and that just seems unpalatable to most people.

Blueshoe

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't disagree with that, but Leo can't even say he's cutting down on meat without being ridiculed, never mind asking people to have less children, it's more realistic for now to say hey let's have less cattle in Ireland, or anywhere in the world, and rewild some of the land, give it back to nature. If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature.
We could still have beef farmers in Ireland, just not every Tom, Dick and Harry outside any urban population having some kind of a herd.
But we would have to cut down on meat, and the amount of meat we export, and that just seems unpalatable to most people.

Not happening. Too important for our economy. Unless the biggest polluting countries make a serious u turn I won't be changing anything. Nor will most people when it comes to it

Thelonious Monk

Blueshoe wrote: »

Not happening. Too important for our economy. Unless the biggest polluting countries make a serious u turn I won't be changing anything. Nor will most people when it comes to it

We would need some kind of international agreement yes. Well that's the best suggestion ive got apart from trying to end reliance on fossil fuels and cleaner energy etc.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

... If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature...

Thelonious - I've no idea why you keep pushing the idea that soya is grown specifically for cattle feed. I know I have detailed this previously But anyways here it is again so as to clarify this.

Just on what animals including beef cattle are fed in this country. Grazing and fodder make up the bulk of what is fed to cattle - over and above this is mostly supplementary type feed. Regarding the idea that soy is grown specifically for cattle worldwide - the fact is the bulk of grain based feed is made up of by-products or waste from human food production..

This from the FAO.

The "study determines that 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption. If not consumed by livestock, crop residues and by-products could quickly become an environmental burden as the human population grows and consumes more and more processed food."

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html

And that goes for all that soy grown. The soy used in animal feed is largely derived from the primary processing of soy beans for soya oil. After the oil is extracted , what is left over is processed into animal feeds - this includes the outer shell of the soy bean called the husk and the pulp or 'meal' from which the oil has been extracted.

Grassland is so an important carbon sink according to the European Environmental Agency.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

The other important point to remember is that globally - the use of fossil fuels for transport and energy is the No 1 cause of greenhouse emissions. And yet we have the same old fixation on only banging meat by some. Very very odd that imo.