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

99problems1

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

What's all this talk about healthy children - the idea is not to have any..

There's a finite amount of resources we can emit anyways so it doesn't matter how healthy kids are, one day those healthy kids will have to deal with climate change anyways, so why not us and let us enjoy our short time on earth and not have a burden of taxes. Enough is enough.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Hyperbole much? Who is attacking Europe? What War? Who is Surrendering? Who is Fighting back? Who is 'pissing their pants'?

And yes the politics of the New Green Wave which you refer have many of the hallmarks of communism from direct state control of the economy at a 'massive scale', the rallying cries to war, of shoulders against the wheel, of the massive mobilisation of labour. It's all there whether you chose to recognise it or otherwise.

Though tbh It would be better for all if you could keep the greta speak aka ""existential "crisis, etc etc to a minimum btw. It is a word bastardised to mean something which it is not.



Doesn't really fit in with your "existential crisis" (dic) now does it eh?

All it is - is yet another word adopted by the looney green fringe to frighten children. There is no war - there is no enemy. What there is - are people and livelihoods and the development of solutions to a range of ongoing issues. However those solutions do not need that we pull the rug out from under our own feet

Again leaving aside the usual platitudes above - how do you purpose to handle the short term situation that calls for the shutting down of human activities which provide for peoples livelihoods and are a significant source of domestic revenue?

More importantly when house building is stopped because building with wood and concrete used in construction involve the release of significant amounts of carbon - what happens then? Herd people into warehouses perhaps?

So you say goverment spending isnt dictated by taxes and revenue? Really? Why do you think we have budgets every year? Why do you think there are cutbacks and often a lack of essential services? Is it that you believe someone magically collects this money from golden trees or something and sprinkles it around like fairy dust?

Truely I have never seen such utter fairypoop and imagineering as is being used by the populist cause you expose and which frankly doesn't have a clue

It reminds me of where someone gets primary school kids to explain macro economics and them asks them to arrive at real world fiscal solutions. Very cute and camera worthy but really not much use in the real world.

Heh - I'll give it that I've been using 'existential crisis' in an unknowingly incorrect and humorous way (tbh I'll probably forget this and end up doing it again, later) - but the (intended) point behind it stands, that when faced with a crisis that threatens a nations (or most of the human populations continued) existence, your view on what counts as 'Communism' would prevent any country from taking acton.

Wood is carbon negative you fool - it's produced in large part by taking carbon out of the atmosphere. R&D to genetically engineer trees that can grow faster and/or absorb more carbon into their structure, and not only do you have the perfect building material in the present, but potentially a long-term permanent way of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere and placing it in structures, at a greater and greater rate.

You know yourself government budgets are just about never balanced - and that's intentional, they are not meant to be.

KyussB

weldoninhio wrote: »

And if we do all of this and then realise that man has only 0.001% to do with climate change?? Seems an awful waste of money on a maybe.

Not at all - we gain power infrastructure worldwide that produces almost Zero pollution - we solve the power generating needs of the world for more than a century to come - we provide shitloads of jobs to last decades - we gain political/economic policies that pretty much guarantee permanent Full Employment and (managed right) decent quality of living - we gain generations of primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. technological benefits from the R&D involved, much like how NASA research for space travel accelerated tech developments we're seeing the fruits of today - we gain massive infrastructural improvements in nearly all areas including public transport.

It's all pretty much a win-win-win situation.

KyussB

99problems1 wrote: »

We have jobs and plentiful employment now.

We'd never have involuntary unemployment for able workers again - not even in the midst of the worst recessions - as the GND builds in a guarantee to provide useful work to all people who need it (with climate change offering almost endless varieties of work, for tackling) - we don't have that.

Atlantic Dawn

How much Sea Owe Two's did her operation save or are we allowed ask facts?

What about people who have broke up perfectly good cars to have a brand new car commissioned are they allowed be mentioned the emissions of that or would that ruin facts?

If someone was to say that 90% plus of the shores along the Liffey were blocked with debris because not a single person checks them to record the need to clear them might reflect whoy it floods, would they be discounted as a person who actually knows facts?

<In the olden days most places didn't flood because people didn'd build new houses on flood plains or they had sense to actually clear shores...modern days they blamed the sun for them being not able to actually do their assigned job>

weldoninhio

KyussB wrote: »

Not at all - we gain power infrastructure worldwide that produces almost Zero pollution - we solve the power generating needs of the world for more than a century to come - we provide shitloads of jobs to last decades - we gain political/economic policies that pretty much guarantee permanent Full Employment and (managed right) decent quality of living - we gain generations of primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. technological benefits from the R&D involved, much like how NASA research for space travel accelerated tech developments we're seeing the fruits of today - we gain massive infrastructural improvements in nearly all areas including public transport.

It's all pretty much a win-win-win situation.

But Greta says we’ve only 11/12 years. She’s said she wants us to panic.

None of the above will matter if catastrophic climate change is happening and isn’t man made, right?? You’ll just be taxing people out of existence and making their remaining years on earth miserable. Why would you do that?? Are you a sadist??

Pa ElGrande

weldoninhio wrote: »

But Greta says we’ve only 11/12 years. She’s said she wants us to panic.

None of the above will matter if catastrophic climate change is happening and isn’t man made, right?? You’ll just be taxing people out of existence and making their remaining years on earth miserable. Why would you do that?? Are you a sadist??

Q. What did socialists use before candles?

A. Electricity. 70–80% of Venezuela's power is from renewable sources and because of their socialist system are subject to rolling blackouts and water rationing. This in a country that has the resources it needs to manage its own affairs.


It might seem a crude joke, this will be the logical outcome of the green new dealers (i.e. socialists). They will impose their ideology on people creating chaos and aligning all economic activity around their plan and then when it fails they will come out with their usual line that was not real socialism. Socialism is a socio-economic system in which the means of production are publicly rather than privately owned, when they are talking about World war II level efforts they mean rationing and direction of production based on their own narrow unenlightened self interest (i.e. power).

The danger for all of us is the current economic system is due for a correction, the idea that you can borrow permanently at near zero interest rates without having to pay back the bonds is not sustainable for either social or corporate welfare. It won't be CAGW the burden Greta's generation face is economic, the welfare state they have known all their lives will collapse and they will have will have the task of recovering from this. Timing is everything so you can see that it does not have traction now, however in then event of a panic, politicians anxious to be seen to do something and avoid blame while staying in power will seize on the green new deal as stimulus using magic money theory (MMT). Only countries that avoid this will recover, socialist systems will remain locked in permanent depression as we see from the latest example in Venezuela.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Heh - I'll give it that I've been using 'existential crisis' in an unknowingly incorrect and humorous way (tbh I'll probably forget this and end up doing it again, later) - but the (intended) point behind it stands, that when faced with a crisis that threatens a nations (or most of the human populations continued) existence, your view on what counts as 'Communism' would prevent any country from taking acton.Wood is carbon negative you fool - it's produced in large part by taking carbon out of the atmosphere. R&D to genetically engineer trees that can grow faster and/or absorb more carbon into their structure, and not only do you have the perfect building material in the present, but potentially a long-term permanent way of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere and placing it in structures, at a greater and greater rate.You know yourself government budgets are just about never balanced - and that's intentional, they are not meant to be.

Fair enough. I generally have a good chuckle whenever I hear people going on about
existential crises tbh. Maybe it's the new speak?

Plenty of solutions to existing problems can and are being taken without having to resort to busted Soviet era style economics or enforced gulag style lifestyles. So no not believing in the "New Green Deal'" does not stop realistic solutions being acted upon. Government budgets are rarely balanced because all countries have constant and increasing demand for public and social services - which in Ireland form the majority of our budgetary spending.

'Wood' is not carbon neutral 'you fool'(sic). The fact is a significant amount of carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere when the tree is destroyed and destroying a forest will release a lot of carbon dioxide in a short period of time and yes it takes a helluva long time to grow new trees.

Swap all construction to timber and watch the worlds mature forests being decimated and as a result even less Co2 uptake.

Wood is also only efficient at carbon uptake at certain points of its life cycle. When millions of trees are felled to make lumber - the wood quickly becomes a net emitter of carbon. This effect is especially relevant where any young trees planted can only take up a proportion of the carbon released.

You see the funny thing is they teach none of this in the various green fringe propaganda schools ...

Heres some interesting reading on some of the other complexities of trees and Co2 exchange. Magic 'genetically engineered' trees are neither here nor there at this point in time.

https://medium.com/the-philipendium/trees-and-carbon-dioxide-what-is-the-truth-c7f8c9d12602

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00122-z

SafeSurfer

Umaro wrote: »

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:

Except that it isn’t “creating a better world” for nothing. Someone will have to pay and that someone is us. Not just through increased taxation but through ever increasing state control of every aspect of our lives.

Thelonious Monk

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Except that it isn’t “creating a better world” for nothing. Someone will have to pay and that someone is us. Not just through increased taxation but through ever increasing state control of every aspect of our lives.

Are people just not willing to give up anything to create a better world? The way we are living now is completely unsustainable. Even the farmers on this thread must realise this? Sometimes less is more folks.

99problems1

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Are people just not willing to give up anything to create a better world? The way we are living now is completely unsustainable. Even the farmers on this thread must realise this? Sometimes less is more folks.

How about we all give up having more than one kid?

Then we can all enjoy life as much as we can without more taxes burdening us on this short time on the planet.

weldoninhio

99problems1 wrote: »

How about we all give up having more than one kid?

Then we can all enjoy life as much as we can without more taxes burdening us on this short time on the planet.

Good luck getting Africa/India to adapt that.

Thelonious Monk

weldoninhio wrote: »

Good luck getting Africa/India to adapt that.

They're not the ones making the mess. Rich countries like ireland are the ones fuelling the chinese economy and over consumption in general.

SafeSurfer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Except that it isn’t “creating a better world” for nothing. Someone will have to pay and that someone is us. Not just through increased taxation but through ever increasing state control of every aspect of our lives.

Are people just not willing to give up anything to create a better world? The way we are living now is completely unsustainable. Even the farmers on this thread must realise this? Sometimes less is more folks.

Of course people are willing to make sacrifices to create a better world. For example giving up one’s free time to give grinds to disadvantaged kids or doing shopping for an elderly neighbor or by being involved in local tidy towns. We can all strive to create a better world without buying into the dogma that if you don’t have a cultural revolution within the next decade the world will end.

recedite

99problems1 wrote: »

How about we all give up having more than one kid?

Then we can all enjoy life as much as we can without more taxes burdening us on this short time on the planet.

The figure required for a stable population is actually about 2.1.
Don't worry too much about the maths, other people have already done it.


All non-third world countries (Europe, North America, China, Japan etc) are already below that rate.
Any more bright ideas?

Thelonious Monk

recedite wrote: »

The figure required for a stable population is actually about 2.1.
Don't worry too much about the maths, other people have already done it.


All non-third world countries (Europe, North America, China, Japan etc) are already below that rate.
Any more bright ideas?

Its mental. These people would rather have population control than to eat less meat and fly less and maybe use less petrol.

SafeSurfer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

The figure required for a stable population is actually about 2.1.
Don't worry too much about the maths, other people have already done it.


All non-third world countries (Europe, North America, China, Japan etc) are already below that rate.
Any more bright ideas?

Its mental. These people would rather have population control than to eat less meat and fly less and maybe use less petrol.

Be honest. That isn’t the benign solution being preached by climate alarmists. It is radical, it is revolutionary. It is a complete change to our way of life.

Dakota Dan

99problems1 wrote: »

How about we all give up having more than one kid?

Then we can all enjoy life as much as we can without more taxes burdening us on this short time on the planet.

Short time planet? In case you haven’t heard it’s been around billions of years and a great probability it will be around for a few billion more.

Thelonious Monk

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Be honest. That isn’t the benign solution being preached by climate alarmists. It is radical, it is revolutionary. It is a complete change to our way of life.

Whether you think they're being alarmist or not, the way things are going there'll be nothing left soon enough. So we have to change our ways or we're facing war and famine and all kinds of horrors sooner or later.
We won't change our ways though, it goes against human nature, so no need to worry.

99problems1

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Short time planet? In case you haven’t heard it’s been around billions of years and a great probability it will be around for a few billion more.

I'm talking about humans being on the planet for a short time.

We'll be lucky to be on it 80 years. Why should I gleefully submit to harsh taxes just to slow the degradation of the planet for the benefit of those who aren't even conceived yet?

Thelonious Monk

99problems1 wrote: »

We'll be lucky to be on it 80 years. Why should I gleefully submit to harsh taxes just to slow the degradation of the planet for the benefit of those who aren't even conceived yet?

Some people care about the planet and other humans. Compassion. Common decency.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Are people just not willing to give up anything to create a better world? The way we are living now is completely unsustainable. Even the farmers on this thread must realise this? Sometimes less is more folks.

Thelonious and his hatred for farmers ...

joe40

99problems1 wrote: »

I'm talking about humans being on the planet for a short time.

We'll be lucky to be on it 80 years. Why should I gleefully submit to harsh taxes just to slow the degradation of the planet for the benefit of those who aren't even conceived yet?

At least that is an honest position.

Selfish, but honest.

Better than hiding behind fake science, or conspiracy theories.

James Brown

99problems1 wrote: »

I'm talking about humans being on the planet for a short time.

We'll be lucky to be on it 80 years. Why should I gleefully submit to harsh taxes just to slow the degradation of the planet for the benefit of those who aren't even conceived yet?

You've no family and don't like humans much I presume?

Jimmy Garlic

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Short time planet? In case you haven’t heard it’s been around billions of years and a great probability it will be around for a few billion more.

It's been through a lot worse, it is not a static planet, it evolves, continents move and climate changes, climate changes radically sometimes over a relatively short space of time. If I had a time machine I'd stick the climate fanatics in it and send them back to the cretaceous period to see how they get on.

Pa ElGrande

joe40 wrote: »

Better than hiding behind fake science, or conspiracy theories.

Isn't that exactly what the warmunists do? There is no empirical proof for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming everyone is attaching their own claims daily to the hypothesis even the temperature trend graphs don't go as predicted and the models results are way out of line with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

James Brown

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

It's been through a lot worse, it is not a static planet, it evolves, continents move and climate changes, climate changes radically sometimes over a relatively short space of time. If I had a time machine I'd stick the climate fanatics in it and send them back to the cretaceous period to see how they get on.

It's about humans surviving it. The planet will still be about I'm sure.

James Brown

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what the warmunists do? There is no empirical proof for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming everyone is attaching their own claims daily to the hypothesis even the temperature trend graphs don't go as predicted and the models results are way out of line with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

For the craic, how about we stop fracking and ****ting on the middle east and stop with the oil obsession?
Even if only for this lad?



Likely he's a pawn in some leftist conspiracy about "oil spills" but still.

SafeSurfer

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what the warmunists do? There is no empirical proof for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming everyone is attaching their own claims daily to the hypothesis even the temperature trend graphs don't go as predicted and the models results are way out of line with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

For the craic, how about we stop fracking and ****ting on the middle east and stop with the oil obsession?
Even if only for this lad?



Likely he's a pawn in some leftist conspiracy about "oil spills" but still.

More birds are killed annually by wind turbines than oil spills but I guess they are just pawns in the green revolution!

Ulysses Gaze

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They're not the ones making the mess. Rich countries like ireland are the ones fuelling the chinese economy and over consumption in general.

China has a burgeoning middle class and has not even reached peak car ownership yet.

Same with Brazil

Same with India.

The West is not the only, or biggest, problem here.