Climate Morons on The Late Late Show

Dr. Bre

The biggest outrage should be why you were watching the late late!

Gynoid

BarryD2 wrote: »

You're right - farming is more conscious of the 'environment' not least due to links to payments etc. But there has been growing reliance on mechanisation and 'scientific' management of crops with spraying etc. We live in a rural area of what might be called partly disadvantaged land, ideal habitat for winged insect life. As regards inputs, local lads might spread a bit of lime or scatter some fertiliser but that's it and little enough. But I see a huge change too over past twenty years. A few miles away the land is better and corn (barley) & beet and so on would be grown. I think the sprays used on these crops must be suspected as the culprits, it's the one factor that has increased.

Largely we are in agreement. But the local lads are getting off a wee bit lightly in your way of putting it, in my opinion. Three quarters of my very rural, lovely neighbours also use round up at their gate posts and on their drive ways to control weeds, some even doing so on longer stretches on the verges - I fail to comprehend how a bank of brown dying grass looks somehow better than green weeds!
Then there are the antibiotics which routinely go into the animals and thus the dung. Then there are the additives in the cow and sheep nuts. All of these change the environmental balance in a big way. It doesn't need mega doses to mess things up. Insects are called ecosystem canaries for a reason - because it takes relatively little to disrupt their ecology and wipe them out.
Plus here we have the endless monoculture forestry which hurls in nitrogen by the multiple bag per acre, leaching off into water courses thereafter, plus the needles acidify the ground and wipe out forest-dwelling diversity.
Even innocent looking and deeply rural, undeveloped environments harbour such a lot of chemicals which contribute to not only ecological problems but also hormonal disruption in humans too. I think chemical atherogenesis is a far more worrisome issue that the sky devil bogey-man climate change.

Seamai

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you're response to a debate is arrogant dismissal without open minded research, then I'd argue you du need to be lectured.

Alsi, n Irishman taking a short hop flight doesn't suddenly has less impact on the environment then an American does.

Climates don't react to political borders.

We do live on an island off an island far from the centre of Europe, alternatives for getting to mainland Europe aren't exactly convenient, however there are million of people flying around Europe every day on routes like Vienna to Budapest, Munich to Frankfurt and Amsterdam to Brussels that are quicker centre to centre by train and vastly kinder to the environment, even London to Paris by train is quicker (and less stressful) but there will be times when flying is the only option particularly where we are situated, I think what needs to looked as is reducing down or eliminating air routes where there are other efficient options.

Dual wheels

Dual wheels wrote: »

I was watching this whilst throwing plastic into my open fire full of turf with my diesel car running outside to the amusement of my herd of cows as I ate a big steak thinking what a bunch of speky twats go play with a football or something

Do you not like being cold?

Anyone else actually like the idea of a warmer Ireland?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seamai wrote: »

We do live on an island off an island far from the centre of Europe, alternatives for getting to mainland Europe aren't exactly convenient, however there are million of people flying around Europe every day on routes like Vienna to Budapest, Munich to Frankfurt and Amsterdam to Brussels that are quicker centre to centre by train and vastly kinder to the environment, even London to Paris by train is quicker (and less stressful) but there will be times when flying is the only option particularly where we are situated, I think what needs to looked as is reducing down or eliminating air routes where there are other efficient options.

The point was: climate change is global.
Flying was just the example.

Mezzotint

I think there's a bit of an issue in mixing US talking points with political reality in Ireland.

If you look at the surveys, Ireland does not have an issue with awareness of climate change and a very large majority accepts the science is science.

The US is an entirely different ball game, with large percentages of the population buying into all kinds of bonkers conspiracy theories and a very serious issue with "anti science" and so on. Apart from an obscure niche, that very few people take seriously, that hasn't been a significant issue here.

The big challenge here and I suspect in a lot of Europe, is more about finding and presenting practical solutions, and many of those are going to have to be technological and find ways that either don't negatively impact, or even improve, lifestyles and local environmental quality. Eg better insulated houses, cheaper and more effective heating systems using heat pumps and so on, building out public transport that people actually want to use and cut commute times etc etc

work

Gynoid wrote: »

I am not so certain on this over population argument. It often seems to disguise misanthropy and certain other ugly yet subtle sentiments. It is never far away from eugenics arguments. There is an inherent superiority complex in it - I am born, I am alive and now I will decide who can be born or how many can be alive...that kind of thing. As far as I am aware the population will regulate itself in numbers in the next several decades - there are convincing arguments made to that effect. They can be googled.
Over consumption now, that is a different matter and I completely agree we vastly over consume.

Your thoughts are why changing the situation is difficult. consider microbes on a Petri they all for when they multiply enough. Of course our populations will self correct eventually....Just like Soylent Green, After misery and killing pretty much all other wildlife we eat each other!

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What have you personally sacrificed in support of their quest?

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I consume little, as the activities of the creation and life cycle of most of our consumables are anti-environmental, a large proportion of the wealth created also doesn't trickle down, it actually trickles up. of course I could also do more, but it would make life extremely difficult to exist, impossible at times. Not only do things need to change at the individual level, but most critically, at a much higher systematic and institutional level, this won't be easy

You consume little? What does that mean? Please elaborate a bit more. Set the example you're talking about. I assume you've already converted to solar panels, use a bike or an electric car, don't fly anywhere, don't eat beef, etc. If you have then fair play. I'm just wondering, though, how you're able to post here without having a phone or computer...

Gynoid

work wrote: »

Your thoughts are why changing the situation is difficult. consider microbes on a Petri they all for when they multiply enough. Of course our populations will self correct eventually....Just like Soylent Green, After misery and killing pretty much all other wildlife we eat each other!

I cannot compare humans to microbes. In any way, shape. It is precisely the dehumanising aspect of the over population argument that repulses me for metaphysical reasons. It is violently misanthropic.

riffmongous

Gynoid wrote: »

I am not so certain on this over population argument. It often seems to disguise misanthropy and certain other ugly yet subtle sentiments. It is never far away from eugenics arguments. There is an inherent superiority complex in it - I am born, I am alive and now I will decide who can be born or how many can be alive...that kind of thing. As far as I am aware the population will regulate itself in numbers in the next several decades - there are convincing arguments made to that effect. They can be googled.
Over consumption now, that is a different matter and I completely agree we vastly over consume.

It's also a very handy way to avoid having to do anything personally. It's easier to just blame the poor people in the developing countries

Faugheen

I thought I had walked into Current Affairs with all the angry middle-aged men throwing abuse at kids wanting to make the world a better place for themselves.

vriesmays

Why is Ireland importing regugees and asylum seekers. Surely this practice will increase our carbon emissions.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You consume little? What does that mean? Please elaborate a bit more. Set the example you're talking about. I assume you've already converted to solar panels, use a bike or an electric car, don't fly anywhere, don't eat beef, etc. If you have then fair play. I'm just wondering, though, how you're able to post here without having a phone or computer...

He said he consumed little, not that he was Amish

In any case, it's not about stopping, it's about reducing. I still fly, but only when I have to (I
E. More than 10 hours by train or train is too expensive) and I still eat meat, but only once it twice a week.

And yes, I also use electrical devices from time to time.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You consume little? What does that mean? Please elaborate a bit more. Set the example you're talking about. I assume you've already converted to solar panels, use a bike or an electric car, don't fly anywhere, don't eat beef, etc. If you have then fair play. I'm just wondering, though, how you're able to post here without having a phone or computer...

i only buy what i think i need, i dont seem to consume what many do, ive very little interest in it, i find regular consumption quiet bizarre behavior. no solar panels, unable to afford it, but id like to, id also like to setup a small wind turbine on site, but similar problem. i do cycle, but not as much as i use to, unable to afford an electric car, fly very little nowadays, not for environmental reasons, but more so because i cant afford it. not only do i eat beef, i eat many different types of meat. i cant post without a computer or phone,....

strangely enough, its actually virtually impossible to exist on this planet without having some sort of negative effect on it, hence the critical need for institutional and systemic changes. theres limitations, severe in some cases, of what changes the individual can do for this issue, it is why im deeply skeptical of polices such as carbon taxation. some of the biggest polluters on this planet are large institutions and corporations, and since a major part of their business models is tax evasion and tax avoidance, you d have to wonder, will they just continue as is, and push this tax onto the backs of the individual? i suspect so, which could simply lead to a major failure in the overall aim of the carbon tax approach, but who knows, i could be wrong, hopefully i am

um7y1h83ge06nx

Most don't deny climate change to be fair, I realise something needs to be done.

The issue I have is that some of the proposals are akin to a crash diet, they are not sustainable long term. When people's quality of life gets impacted by climate change solutions there will probably be a backlash. But by then there will probably be another bandwagon to feed some people's egos.

So something needs to be done but in a controlled, sustainable fashion and we need to get away from the hysteria and those that will jump on any issue to stroke their egos.

Gynoid

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He said he consumed little, not that he was Amish

In any case, it's not about stopping, it's about reducing. I still fly, but only when I have to (I
E. More than 10 hours by train or train is too expensive) and I still eat meat, but only once it twice a week.

And yes, I also use electrical devices from time to time.

Here's some facts.
80% of people on this planet have NEVER flown.

One in nine people on the planet do not have sufficient calorific intake - ie they are hungry.
(40% of Indians do not eat meat - for different reasons, but it has not made them ''climate change'' stars).

1.2 billion people on this planet have no access to electricity.

I'd say these people love to be heckled by the smug emperors of the world. Which is what we are. Anyone earning over 25,00 euros per annum is in the top 1% globally.

Mezzotint

The only thing that's probably a strong positive is that at a certain stage of development, humans seem to start focusing on lifestyle quality rather than raw numbers game population growth. You can see that in most of Europe and Japan etc, where birthrates peaked in the 20th century.

I would assume that societies reach a point where people aren't hedging their futures on needing to rear tons of kids - there's a sense that you'll be ok in your old age due to strong social supports, children don't risk succumbing to childhood diseases in large numbers (something that's only really ended in the 1950s in the West) and also women want to take an active role in society and not spend much of their adult lives pregnant. Lots of the societal and religious hangups about reproduction have fallen away in the developed world and that's a huge part of it.

If that trend is universal, the key to climate change is trying to accelerate developing countries to skip to the post industrial phase of development and trying to use as much tech as we can use to automate and clean industry and agriculture.

Having developing countries languishing in long, slow, highly polluting phases may suit a demand for cheap goods in the developed world but it's just going to do serious environmental damage.

If we can get to a situation where most of the world is in a high quality of life and populations become stable and sustainable, that's where we eventually get to the sweet spot where things can begin to balance. However, there's no indication that's likely to happen in any of our lifetimes as most of the planet's human population isn't living in situations where that's on the agenda at all. The majority of us live hand to mouth and will take whatever bit of economic growth we can grab.

The discussion we should be having is that if we don't manage to get our act together, the planetary systems tend to just balance things out in terms of energy, climate and carbon cycles and so on. If we push our impacts beyond a certain level, those systems and cycles just kick back, our systems become unsustainable and you'll have climatic and resource limitations that will limit or growth anyway. It's just that they'll cause famines and wars over resources, but ultimately we will just have to live within the resources that are there.

My view of it is that we aren't actually capable of that level of planning, so we can see the issue but on a species level we just aren't capable of the levels of organisation required to deal with it, so crisis is going to be inevitable.

That doesn't mean Ireland, Europe or anywhere else shouldn't try to mitigate this and do whatever we can to use tech and knowledge.

My view of it is that we need to be putting resources into things like sea barrages and protecting cities and so on now, rather than reacting to the impacts of climate change when we're knee deep in water in a few decades' time. Those are the things we can control.

In an Irish context making investments in things like urban public transport systems in the cities and improving how housing and agriculture operate would have far deeper impacts than anything else and would also make the country more pleasant to live in. Also things like allowing people to work from home more and leveraging things like broadband to reduce transportation etc Those are the kinds of things we should be pushing and that you'll find a lot of people will be willing to get on board with.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

That's exactly what will happen. Do you honestly think that Non European countries are not going to try and take economic advantage of Europe plunging itself into Green Socialism?

It's a game of thrones out there. Leaders will do whatever they can do to consolidate their power. "Climate Action" ain't going to go down well to Indians and Pakistanis. European style Carbon Taxes in Nigeria or Bangladesh will have a leader dragged through the streets.

Uber Liberal Globalist Leaders will be laughed out of the 3rd World. Us doing something and the others doing nothing, will only hand over our political and economic power. And they won't be as nice to us, as we are to them.

Further to my point, I see that there are protests in Iran about fuel prices going up. A country where you can get whacked if you protest against the regime.

Good luck telling the Iranians that they are going to have to dump those petrol cars and replace them with really expensive electric vehicles.

All politics are local. And nobody really gives a **** about other far flung places of the world as long as it doesn't effect themselves.

Motivator

Motivator wrote: »

Ireland represents 0.06% of the worlds population. What we do in this country has absolutely no impact on the world’s climate. At 36 years of age, I really don’t need to be lectured by some jumped up privately schooled toadface on a Friday evening telling me to buy second hand jeans in order to save the planet.

I used to think boards was a place where I'd agree with the general consensus. I felt an ownership over the collective consciousness. Every day now whether it's after hours or current affairs, there's a comment like this with a ton of people agreeing making me realise that maybe this site no longer represents me.

joe40

Gynoid wrote: »

Here's some facts.
80% of people on this planet have NEVER flown.

One in nine people on the planet do not have sufficient calorific intake - ie they are hungry.
(40% of Indians do not eat meat - for different reasons, but it has not made them ''climate change'' stars).

1.2 billion people on this planet have no access to electricity.

I'd say these people love to be heckled by the smug emperors of the world. Which is what we are. Anyone earning over 25,00 euros per annum is in the top 1% globally.

I don't think anyone is lecturing the people you're talking about.
It is the overconsumption and emmisions in Western developed countries that are the problem.

seamus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I used to think boards was a place where I'd agree with the general consensus. I felt an ownership over the collective consciousness. Every day now whether it's after hours or current affairs, there's a comment like this with a ton of people agreeing making me realise that maybe this site no longer represents me.

There are only actually about 4 regular posters on AH. They have 20 accounts each and haven't left their parents house in a decade. In their spare time they go on Twitter ranting about trans people and the oppression of men.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gynoid wrote: »

Here's some facts.
80% of people on this planet have NEVER flown.

One in nine people on the planet do not have sufficient calorific intake - ie they are hungry.
(40% of Indians do not eat meat - for different reasons, but it has not made them ''climate change'' stars).

1.2 billion people on this planet have no access to electricity.

I'd say these people love to be heckled by the smug emperors of the world. Which is what we are. Anyone earning over 25,00 euros per annum is in the top 1% globally.

You sure you replied to the right post here...? Not saying the connection with what I wrote.

Bob Harris

Climate change is the new take off your shoes and put your liquids in a clear plastic bag at the airport.

PopePalpatine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He said he consumed little, not that he was Amish

In any case, it's not about stopping, it's about reducing. I still fly, but only when I have to (I
E. More than 10 hours by train or train is too expensive) and I still eat meat, but only once it twice a week.

And yes, I also use electrical devices from time to time.

Your point is irrelevant, just give in to that sweet, sweet coal and Brazilian beef.

Mezzotint

That's also going to be the problem though. It's those with least resources who will be the ones paying most as the climate shifts and resources become more scarce and expensive. Societies that can afford to adapt will and those than can't face seriously huge humanitarian crisis and probably wars and so on.

We're not exactly wonderful at distribution of resources or thinking beyond our own patch and I don't think this will be any different. That's the sad reality or humanity - we have bubbles or development and it's always supported by bubbles of poverty.

I mean think about it from the point of view of the products you're using every day. Despite all the progress, a lot of them are still based on horrendous working conditions that we claim to have consigned to the dim and distant past, thinking that we're in high tech post industrial societies. The reality is if you look at something like how your clothing is probably made, that it's exploiting grinding poverty and sweatshop and worse conditions at some stage in production and manufacturing. It's just out of sight and out of mind.

Gynoid

seamus wrote: »

There are only actually about 4 regular posters on AH. They have 20 accounts each and haven't left their parents house in a decade. In their spare time they go on Twitter ranting about trans people and the oppression of men.

People with half a brain left AH to the mouth breathers years ago.

bunderoon

work wrote: »

Your thoughts are why changing the situation is difficult. consider microbes on a Petri they all for when they multiply enough. Of course our populations will self correct eventually....Just like Soylent Green, After misery and killing pretty much all other wildlife we eat each other!

The worlds population wont go past 12 billion.
What it depends on is the amount of those people will move out of poverty and start to use resources to the same level as those in middle class.

The world is plenty big enough if groups of 'people/s' spread out.


The main issue is that human beings have psychopaths and they usually rise to the top. So we're doomed either way.

Gynoid

joe40 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is lecturing the people you're talking about.
It is the overconsumption and emmisions in Western developed countries that are the problem.

China and India are number 1 and 4 respectively in terms of highest global CO2 emissions. Most of the people in those countries are very poor.

quokula

Gynoid wrote: »

China and India are number 1 and 4 respectively in terms of highest global CO2 emissions. Most of the people in those countries are very poor.

Ireland's CO2 emissions per capita is higher than China and four times higher than India.

wakka12

Gynoid wrote: »

China and India are number 1 and 4 respectively in terms of highest global CO2 emissions. Most of the people in those countries are very poor.

China is not the poor country it once was. 850 million of it's citizens have been lifted from extreme poverty since 1980's. Just 0.7% of the population live on less than 2 dollars a day, with that number predicted to be zero by 2020. Between 2000 and 2010, per capita income rosefrom $1,000 to $5,000, moving China into the ranks of middle-income countries. .Also much of it's emissions are from the industry that provides us with luxuries of modern daily life we enjoy in the west.