We need rationing and wartime style restrictions..

Jimmy Garlic

...According to the Irish Times. This is the conclusion of at the end of a doom laden article by John Gibbons.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/nature-will-have-the-last-word-on-the-climate-crisis-1.4123780

ShooterSF

I could see a universe where it comes to that alright. Humanity has a knack for missing what is right in front of it until it can ignore it no longer. We might get to a point where to stop things really does need such drastic actions.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Waits for the "We lived through the rationing from WW2 and it did us no harm" bs.

KWAG2019

The huge corporations, their shareholders are the enemies of everyone’s future. Read the article. And lobbyists should be severely restricted to publicly recorded access to legislators.

X111111111111

More doom and gloom. Yawn

Thelonious Monk

We all need to consume less, or we're f*cked. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We all need to consume less, or we're f*cked. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

You’re right, and there’s only one way to do it. Less people=Less consumption.

It’s a scientific fact.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_313704365

Shefwedfan

To be honest for over 30 years now we have been told to reduce CO2 and failed miserably

The people have no will to do it bar a few. Most just want to bury head in sand and blame China or someone else.

I can’t see anything changing, just look at feedback on article to ban combustion engine car sales in 10 years and people going nuts.....not a clue.....stupidity is the biggest issues with the human race, that and greed

X111111111111

Shefwedfan wrote: »

To be honest for over 30 years now we have been told to reduce CO2 and failed miserably

The people have no will to do it bar a few. Most just want to bury head in sand and blame China or someone else.

I can’t see anything changing, just look at feedback on article to ban combustion engine car sales in 10 years and people going nuts.....not a clue.....stupidity is the biggest issues with the human race, that and greed

Electric cars are more damaging to the environment.

Thelonious Monk

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You’re right, and there’s only one way to do it. Less people=Less consumption.

It’s a scientific fact.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_313704365

Ugh. Ok but even if we halved world population we're still consuming at a rate where the planet would be f*cked in no time anyway.
There's no getting away from the fact that our way of life is not sustainable.
So - we all need to consume less, stop buying so much crap, and take care of the planet better.

Shefwedfan

X111111111111 wrote: »

Electric cars are more damaging to the environment.

Did I mention electric cars?

Plus what that based on?

El_Duderino 09

KWAG2019 wrote: »

The huge corporations, their shareholders are the enemies of everyone’s future. Read the article. And lobbyists should be severely restricted to publicly recorded access to legislators.

Ah yes. And you're right. But try proposing raising tax on the huge corporations and see what reaction you get. They used to campaign on Trickle down economics but they don't do that any longer but the policies of trickle down economics has never been stronger.

Nobody buys the notion that we should manipulate the economy do wealthy people have more wealth. But that's what we're getting whether we say we want it or not. Shur, pentioners own most of the residential property nowadays. Total reversal of the recent social contract.

I'm not proposing a revolution but I wouldn't be opposed to lbs either.

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Ugh. Ok but even if we halved world population we're still consuming at a rate where the planet would be f*cked in no time anyway.

Do you have a link or a source to support that? Looks made up and without substance.

Thelonious Monk

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Do you have a link or a source to support that? Looks made up and without substance.

It's common sense, Einstein.

Thelonious Monk

I studied economics for a while. Economic growth is equal to population growth plus growth in per capita GDP.
If we were to reduce the population, we would need to reduce our standard of living too as economic growth and increase of GDP is based on population growth.
For all you saying the problem is population and we need to reduce it - are you ok with reducing population and having a lower standard of living? I doubt it. Sharing resources and consuming less is the only answer, imo.

KWAG2019

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah yes. And you're right. But try proposing raising tax on the huge corporations and see what reaction you get. They used to campaign on Trickle down economics but they don't do that any longer but the policies of trickle down economics has never been stronger.

Nobody buys the notion that we should manipulate the economy do wealthy people have more wealth. But that's what we're getting whether we say we want it or not. Shur, pentioners own most of the residential property nowadays. Total reversal of the recent social contract.

I'm not proposing a revolution but I wouldn't be opposed to lbs either.

These entities are a threat to our continued existence.

SEPT 23 1989

They want the price of our transport our clothes the means to heat our homes increased drastically lowering our standard of living again

Rations?

Go fcuk yourselves

We paid enough price in blood through the generations to have the standard of living we have today

The Working Class need to organise very quickly

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I studied economics for a while. Economic growth is equal to population growth plus growth in per capita GDP.
If we were to reduce the population, we would need to reduce our standard of living too as economic growth and increase of GDP is based on population growth.
For all you saying the problem is population and we need to reduce it - are you ok with reducing population and having a lower standard of living? I doubt it. Sharing resources and consuming less is the only answer, imo.

You must have only studied it for a short while, because you’re wrong.

If each worker increases productivity you can have an increase in GDP without an increase in population, in fact you can have an increase in GDP and a decline in population at the same time.

Thelonious Monk

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They want the price of our transport our clothes the means to heat our homes increased drastically lowering our standard of living again

Rations?

Go fcuk yourselves

We paid enough price in blood through the generations to have the standard of living we have today

The Working Class need to organise very quickly

I'm working class and i think the way we live nowadays is pretty disgusting. We all need to man up and realise we cant live this snowflake consumer cushioned lifestyle and appreciate food and clothing and everything we consume a little more.

Thelonious Monk

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You must have only studied it for a short while, because you’re wrong.

If each worker increases productivity you can have an increase in GDP without an increase in population, in fact you can have an increase in GDP and a decline in population at the same time.

Do you see any population controls being brought in in Europe in your lifetime?

El_Duderino 09

KWAG2019 wrote: »

These entities are a threat to our continued existence.

I don’t disagree. The wealth is being concentrated amongst fewer, older people. Wealth remains real money and labour only earns the scrapings of a living.

But the policies people vote for facilitate the continuation of wealth concentrating with fewer, older, wealthy people.

_Brian

The big problem is the increasing insidious power of conglomerates.

They are selling people a lifestyle that does nothing but pass all wealth and power to them.

More and more they are muscling in on the food chain and creating “paid for science” that is leading public sentiment and government policy in dorections that secures their future profits and power.

Citroen2cv

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Ugh. Ok but even if we halved world population we're still consuming at a rate where the planet would be f*cked in no time anyway.
There's no getting away from the fact that our way of life is not sustainable.
So - we all need to consume less, stop buying so much crap, and take care of the planet better.

Yep, and no better time than Christmas and post Christmas sales to realise that we consume far too much, clothing, food etc.

KWAG2019

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They want the price of our transport our clothes the means to heat our homes increased drastically lowering our standard of living again

Rations?

Go fcuk yourselves

We paid enough price in blood through the generations to have the standard of living we have today

The Working Class need to organise very quickly

No no no no no and no. Everyone outside the 1 or 2% need to organize. Because everyone outside that is either working clas or welfare class.

lawred2

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Ugh. Ok but even if we halved world population we're still consuming at a rate where the planet would be f*cked in no time anyway.
There's no getting away from the fact that our way of life is not sustainable.
So - we all need to consume less, stop buying so much crap, and take care of the planet better.

Nah easier to throw the hands up to heaven and wish that most people would just die

The One Doctor

No modern government would propose measure to reduce the population. Even when it might be the only way out, apart from actually buying less **** and using it for longer.

SEPT 23 1989

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'm working class and i think the way we live nowadays is pretty disgusting. We all need to man up and realise we cant live this snowflake consumer cushioned lifestyle and appreciate food and clothing and everything we consume a little more.

You can lead whatever life you want if you want to go back to where we hadn’t a pot to p1ss in go ahead

Don’t expect others to follow you

Harry Palmr

I'm old enough not to care. Only joking, my carbon footprint is tiny as I'm not wealthy enough to have a bigger one.

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Do you see any population controls being brought in in Europe in your lifetime?

I honestly don’t know. But what I do know is the powers that be are creating a new industry, the climate change/green industry, so that they can profit from it.

Google “oil company buys” and see what your suggested searches are, and what news articles come up.

Climate change is big business, it’s more consumerism wrapped in a guise of ‘save the planet’.

Buying new/more ‘stuff’ will not save the planet.

Harry Palmr

Most of us could buy less stuff and not in any measurable way make our lives worse. In fact we would have less to throw out later, so reducing our green bin charges and having less in the attic.

Quantum Erasure

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

... doom laden article by John Gibbons.

Would he lie to you?

Peregrine

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You’re right, and there’s only one way to do it. Less people=Less consumption.

It’s a scientific fact.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_313704365

Only one way to do it? No and that's the worst way to do it. It lacks any awareness of the problem beyond a headline.

People don't consume equally.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

When consumption is the issue, you cut consumption. Not population. Cutting population is a pathetic response trying to spread the burden equally when the burden itself was created highly unequally.

KWAG2019

An illustration of the bull**** about change; when it’s the institutions that need change they are expert at shifting the debate to the individual level. I heard Brendan Comiskey challenged publicly about the church in the early 80’s and his line was “DONT ask about how the institutions can change, ask about how you can change”. Utter bull****. And you’ll see it here and elsewhere. It’s the CORPORATIONS STUPID.

mzungu

Part of the problem is changing the public mindset away from consumerism. The governments plan to get 1 million electric cars on the road by 2030 is all well and good, but if people end up changing electric cars as often as they do with petrol and diesel then we are back at square A. For eg. raw materials like cobalt used for electric car batteries are still attained by some poor kid for less than a euro a day in the DRC. This corporate "business model" will still remain no matter what kind of car you are driving. Is there any use in patting oneself on the back for driving an electric car and saving the planet when it is still built off the back of exploitation in the southern hemisphere?

In addition, there is also the obvious environmental cost of mining for these raw materials. There are no easy answers, but even the current crop of lithium-ion batteries produced in China, South Korea and Japan were dependent on the use of fossil fuels. At present, those batteries are forecasted to be discarded by 2030, but with few options put on the table for recycling and reuse at this moment in time.

The problem is that the consumerist ideology is being touted as part of the solution, but we really need to look outside that. If the habits of the people don't change, then any measures that are taken will end up being cosmetic.

Beasty

KWAG2019 wrote: »

The huge corporations, their shareholders are the enemies of everyone’s future. Read the article. And lobbyists should be severely restricted to publicly recorded access to legislators.

Take them all out and see what happens to your pension funds

The problem is it's now a global economy, a global marketplace. Everything is so intertwined that tweaking one part will probably have unexpected consequences on another

And to be clear, yes huge corporations drive economic growth. They also drive global efficiencies. They are likely to be a major part of any "solution"

And let's not forget governments and their race to make their countries economic leaders, or in some cases wanting to catch up with others. It becomes a vicious cycle and is at a stage now where it can only be tempered by global actions. Unfortunately the required solutions will take much longer then the typical lifespan of any government to deal with, making it a complete disincentive to act

Harry Palmr

Mark Carney (outgoing Bank of England guv'ner) has implored big business to start to decarbon now rather than take a much bigger hit later as assets are rendered worth less or worthless. It feels like big money esp wealth funds and insurance are the secret and so far largely unused weapons in this area. If they start to dictate terms to borrowers and the insured things could move with some greater speed.

Dr. Bre

Easiest way is to reduce population. Less people less demand . Now let’s hope they don’t start with me first ...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Not until we are totally ****ed will some people realise that, **** - maybe the lunatics were actualyl right.

c montgomery

mzungu wrote: »

Part of the problem is changing the public mindset away from consumerism. The governments plan to get 1 million electric cars on the road by 2030 is all well and good, but if people end up changing electric cars as often as they do with petrol and diesel then we are back at square A. For eg. raw materials like cobalt used for electric car batteries are still attained by some poor kid for less than a euro a day in the DRC. This corporate "business model" will still remain no matter what kind of car you are driving. Is there any use in patting oneself on the back for driving an electric car and saving the planet when it is still built off the back of exploitation in the southern hemisphere?

In addition, there is also the obvious environmental cost of mining for these raw materials.

The problem is that the consumerist ideology is being touted as part of the solution, but we really we need to look outside that. If the habits of the people don't change, then any measures that are taken will end up being cosmetic.

Exactly !!

I already have a car, the best thing for the environment is not to buy a new electric car but to keep running the one I have.

ZuluDawn2020

John Gibbons shows every sign of being gripped by pseudo messianic meglomania. His rhetoric and writings and tweeting is hysterically apocalyptic.
He spoke at Trinity College in a debate about ecoterrorism and basically said if the so called peaceful extinction rebellion movement is met with "repression" then violence is inevitable although he claims to support peaceful protest. He seems to have a soft spot for the Cuban revolution which was anything but peaceful.

I am suprised he has stopped short of going full David Icke and not said climate change is the work of reptilians

KungPao

Can’t we just kill the poor?

SEPT 23 1989

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

John Gibbons shows every sign of being gripped by pseudo messianic meglomania. His rhetoric and writings and tweeting is hysterically apocalyptic.
He spoke at Trinity College in a debate about ecoterrorism and basically said if the so called peaceful extinction rebellion movement is met with "repression" then violence is inevitable although he claims to support peaceful protest. He seems to have a soft spot for the Cuban revolution which was anything but peaceful.

I am suprised he has stopped short of going full David Icke and not said climate change is the work of reptilians

Does Mr Gibbons not realise that if they use violence the response will come from the ordinary people and not the state as we witnessed on the tube in London

The outcome will not be pretty for them

skooterblue2

The One Doctor wrote: »

No modern government would propose measure to reduce the population. Even when it might be the only way out, apart from actually buying less **** and using it for longer.

Agenda 2020 plan by the UN?

its all written there.

They mention the word "education" in the 2030 plan 30 times.

1 in 6 couples in Ireland are having problems with conception.
The Birth rate in Germany, France and Italian native populations are well below the replacement rate.

Shhhhh we dont want to upset the plebs.

Fr_Dougal

Peregrine wrote: »

Only one way to do it? No and that's the worst way to do it. It lacks any awareness of the problem beyond a headline.

People don't consume equally.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

When consumption is the issue, you cut consumption. Not population. Cutting population is a pathetic response trying to spread the burden equally when the burden itself was created highly unequally.

Yeah, I’d rather not have to rely on a report written by Oxfam, they have their own agenda.

If you even bothered reading the report you quoted you’d see that their methodology is flawed.

The approach adopted assumes an elastic relationship between income and emissions. Put simply, it takes data on income shares of different percentiles at the national level and distributes aggregate national emissions to those percentiles.
It draws on two datasets: national income distribution data from analysis by Branko Milanovic based on household surveys for 118 countries in the benchmark year 2008; and estimates of CO2 emissions associated with household consumption (which we here term ‘lifestyle consumption emissions’) from Glen Peters based on a Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) trade model, covering 121 countries, for the year 2007

So from the outset it’s assuming that income has an elastic relationship with emissions.

skooterblue2

KungPao wrote: »

Can’t we just kill the poor?

Oh we are..... we are doing it nice and quietly. notice the rising rates of Alzheimer's and Parkinsons? The solution to this is to propose euthanasia. Then kill the youth with abortions. Make a never seen before homeless population. Then there are rising levels of Autism. oh its all happening!!

KWAG2019

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

John Gibbons shows every sign of being gripped by pseudo messianic meglomania. His rhetoric and writings and tweeting is hysterically apocalyptic.
He spoke at Trinity College in a debate about ecoterrorism and basically said if the so called peaceful extinction rebellion movement is met with "repression" then violence is inevitable although he claims to support peaceful protest. He seems to have a soft spot for the Cuban revolution which was anything but peaceful.

I am suprised he has stopped short of going full David Icke and not said climate change is the work of reptilians

The historical reality is that violence happens when human beings have to survive and have nothing left to lose.

KWAG2019

Beasty wrote: »

Take them all out and see what happens to your pension funds

The problem is it's now a global economy, a global marketplace. Everything is so intertwined that tweaking one part will probably have unexpected consequences on another

And to be clear, yes huge corporations drive economic growth. They also drive global efficiencies. They are likely to be a major part of any "solution"

And let's not forget governments and their race to make their countries economic leaders, or in some cases wanting to catch up with others. It becomes a vicious cycle and is at a stage now where it can only be tempered by global actions. Unfortunately the required solutions will take much longer then the typical lifespan of any government to deal with, making it a complete disincentive to act

Continuing to defend corporations is the same as endorsing their poisoning of the planet and the democratic institutions which might change things. Talking of pensions funds is ridiculous; if you have no planet your pension isn’t going to be paid.

Beechwoodspark

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

...According to the Irish Times. This is the conclusion of at the end of a doom laden article by John Gibbons.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/nature-will-have-the-last-word-on-the-climate-crisis-1.4123780

Bring it on. We need to prioritise saving the earth over all else for a number of decades at least.

skooterblue2

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Bring it on. We need to prioritise saving the earth over all else for a number of decades at least.

you have seen the judgement on Roundup on the new Bayer-Monsantos conglomerate?

Peregrine

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If you even bothered reading the report you quoted you’d see that their methodology is flawed.



So from the outset it’s assuming that income has an elastic relationship with emissions.

Are you actually disputing that? You think there's an inelastic relationship between income and emissions? Think of the implications of that. It doesn't match any data.

You actually imply the opposite yourself in your initial post. If you agree that higher consumption leads to higher emissions then you can surely agree that higher income leads to higher consumption and therefore higher emissions.

Christ. I can't believe I'm arguing this.

hapime

The idea is pure horse****!
The simple fact is the west is growing more and more food to send to barren parts of Africa that where never meant to have populations in the 10's of millions.
The equivalent of 50 Marshall plans have been pumped into Africa since the 70's and things are only getting worse, time to cut the cord, let famine take its course and the natural order return, the sooner this is done the better as the African population will keep rising and the longer we wait the more will die due to famine once the west cannot feed them, due to war/natural disaster and such things.
Be cruel to be kind, to African folk and the planet.