Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Extinction Rebellion Ireland
Options
Comments
-
Dakota Dan wrote: »Only climate scientists have the ability to predict the future up to a century ahead, imagine if financial advisors could do that.
Financial advice isn’t a science.0 -
Financial experts aren't climate scientists.
And there were loads of independent experts warning about the crash pre-1998. They were drowned out by the vested interests who were being paid to believe that the property market could only ever go up.
Independent academics and research scientists have been convinced by the evidence for climate change for decades. A small number of ideologues or shills have been critical of climate change science but they do not have the data to back up their opinions, and they should not be given a platform until they have evidence that supports their scientific opinion.
Should we not also be critical of and 'not give a platform' to the vested interests riding on the back of 'climate change' as promoted by pro climate change ideologues and shrills?
For example in Kenya a foreign backed company called M-Kopa Solar was set up as a pay-per-use solar power provider for poor households (in the form of solar kits)
Flagged as the the "Solar Company Making a Profit on Poor Africans" by Bloomberg, M-Kopa was the brainchild of wealthy investors - Jesse Moore (CEO), Chad Larson and Nick Hughes —who helped develop the parent company M-Pesa, which has more than 19 million users in Africa
From its inception, Al Gore’s firm has been a lead equity investor of M-Kopa. M-Kopa solar also raised money from investors including Richard Branson and Generation Investment Management.
“We think it’s possible to build a business with no trade-offs. We can benefit the environment. Our customers will be better off. And we’ll get richer. We all can win.” M-Kopa Canadian co-founder, Jesse Moore
The solar panel product sold is enabled through a piece of technology which uses a sim card as a control switch. Should the customer in Kenya fail to pay the daily repayment amount, M-Kopa will disable the device.
M-Kopa Customers "that do not make their payments, will be punished accordingly: Our loan officer is that SIM card in the device that can shut it off remotely,” says Chad Larson, M-Kopa’s finance director and its third co-founder. “We know that it’s important for them to keep their lights on at night, so they can be counted on to keep paying.” M-Kopa can also turn off the device remotely if the customer falls behind on payments.
In 2015, M-Kopa announced its plan to have their customers, who defaulted on their loans, blacklisted with credit bureaus:
What is rarely mentioned, if ever, is the fact that the M-Kopa solar panels etc. are not made locally, rather, they are “sourced from overseas markets. (China)
Look like lots of marketing opportunities to make money for some of those doing a lot of the screaming ...0 -
Just did a very quick check
2011 nissan leaf on sale on donedeal today for €6500
Not many wealthy and upper middle class people buying cars for €6500
https://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/nissan-leaf-2011/21578428
By 2030 there will be a thriving 2nd hand market for EVs and the batteries will be fully recyclable so buying reconditioned batteries will be much cheaper than todays prices.
The costs of running an EV are way lower than an ICE car, and they can be made in a wide variety of shapes and sizes due to the fewer limitations due to where the engine and drivetrain have to go.
Anyway, in 11 years time, there will probably be fleets of electric self driving cars for hire for a fraction of the price of a taxi, so a lot of people could probably get away with using these rather than having to bother with the massive expense of owning and running their own car.
€6500 is robbery, those early leafs had very bad range whatever the advertiser wants you to believe.0 -
This attitude towards climate change is why carbon taxes are so important. People that only care about their own standard of life an their own financial well being need to be motivated by market mechanisms to do the right thing.
BTW, food shortages are absolutely one of the major potential consequences of climate change in the coming decades.
You live in a time and a place where you quite probably have never had a single day in your life where you didn't have enough food to eat. If climate change isn't tackled, and global average temperatures increase by 2 or 3 or more degrees, we could face food shortages. Not to mention that a large percentage of the worlds population today already face food insecurity on a regular basis, it's just that it might become worse so that even us privileged people might be impacted by it.
It is within the bounds of accepted human behaviour that people will put their family and their own security before that of strangers - that is human nature - no more. Penalising people for that through the imposition of taxes so that they will be more "motivated by market mechanisms" is bull****e.
As for the constant hyperbole that " food shortages are absolutely one of the major potential consequences of climate change in the coming decades"(sic)
'Potential' - 'could' - might - 'food shortages' etc etc etc
It remains that any future deficit in in the worlds ability to produce food is at best an unknown and yet this is repeatedly being used as a means of scaremongering.
At present - there is no global shortage of food, rather there is localised food insecurity largely caused by corruption, poverty and local inequalities with regard to food distribution.
To conflate current global food insecurity with a postulated outcome of some unknown point in the future is not only alarmist propaganda - it serves no purpose in a rational debate.
See: https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/0 -
Should we not also be critical of and 'not give a platform' to the vested interests riding on the back of 'climate change' as promoted by pro climate change ideologues and shrills?
For example in Kenya a foreign backed company called M-Kopa Solar was set up as a pay-per-use solar power provider for poor households (in the form of solar kits)
Flagged as the the "Solar Company Making a Profit on Poor Africans" by Bloomberg, M-Kopa was the brainchild of wealthy investors - Jesse Moore (CEO), Chad Larson and Nick Hughes —who helped develop the parent company M-Pesa, which has more than 19 million users in Africa
From its inception, Al Gore’s firm has been a lead equity investor of M-Kopa. M-Kopa solar also raised money from investors including Richard Branson and Generation Investment Management.
“We think it’s possible to build a business with no trade-offs. We can benefit the environment. Our customers will be better off. And we’ll get richer. We all can win.” M-Kopa Canadian co-founder, Jesse Moore
The solar panel product sold is enabled through a piece of technology which uses a sim card as a control switch. Should the customer in Kenya fail to pay the daily repayment amount, M-Kopa will disable the device.
M-Kopa Customers "that do not make their payments, will be punished accordingly: Our loan officer is that SIM card in the device that can shut it off remotely,” says Chad Larson, M-Kopa’s finance director and its third co-founder. “We know that it’s important for them to keep their lights on at night, so they can be counted on to keep paying.” M-Kopa can also turn off the device remotely if the customer falls behind on payments.
In 2015, M-Kopa announced its plan to have their customers, who defaulted on their loans, blacklisted with credit bureaus:
What is rarely mentioned, if ever, is the fact that the M-Kopa solar panels etc. are not made locally, rather, they are “sourced from overseas markets. (China)
Look like lots of marketing opportunities to make money for some of those doing a lot of the screaming ...
All companies will cut off non payers. In most cases will affect their credit rating. And China is the world manufacturing hub.
So you don’t like capitalism here.0 -
Advertisement
-
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »All companies will cut off non payers. In most cases will affect their credit rating. And China is the world manufacturing hub. So you don’t like capitalism here.
I posed the question should we not also be critical of those wealthy 'shrills and idealogues' preaching the gospel of global doom targeting some of the poorest people on the planet under the guise of green energy and making huge profits from poor Africans. But yes - China producing these "green technologies" from an industrial base predominantly dependant on fossil fuels ie coal and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet
Yeah you're right what's not to like ?
They who "do not make their payments, will be punished accordingly...We know that it’s important for them to keep their lights on at night, so they can be counted on to keep paying."
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/0 -
I posed the question should we not also be critical of those wealthy 'shrills and idealogues' preaching the gospel of global doom targeting some of the poorest people on the planet under the guise of green energy and making huge profits from poor Africans. But yes - China producing these "green technologies" from an industrial base predominantly dependant on fossil fuels ie coal and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet
No we shouldn’t. If capitalism helps to fix the problem then that’s great. If these energy suppliers were supplying carbon footprint rich energy you would love them. China would be producing the coal and gas plants too if that was what was being utilised here.Yeah you're right what's not to like ?
They who "do not make their payments, will be punished accordingly...We know that it’s important for them to keep their lights on at night, so they can be counted on to keep paying."
You’ve posted that before.
That’s the mantra of every single power company in the world including here. If I don’t pay the ESB they cut me off. Every. Single. Power. Company. In. The. World.
I doubt if you believe that energy should be free either so this is another example of climate denialists not liking something they would be in favour of were it not good for the environment.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »No we shouldn’t. If capitalism helps to fix the problem then that’s great. If these energy suppliers were supplying carbon footprint rich energy you would love them. China would be producing the coal and gas plants too if that was what was being utilised here. That’s the mantra of every single power company in the world including here. If I don’t pay the ESB they cut me off. Every. Single. Power. Company. In. The. World. I doubt if you believe that energy should be free either so this is another example of climate denialists not liking something they would be in favour of were it not good for the environment.
The thing is these are not "power companies" - they're a finance company flogging cheaply produced ****e from China with a 'green' label.
Nick Hughes, M-Kopa’s strategy director and one of its foundersIf you boil it down, what we are is a finance company,”
As for the rest Lol - really? Hyperbole much btw? None of that has anything to do with what I was highlighting has it except you ranting about 'climate denialists' (sic)
So if you're happy with the hypocrisy of those preaching doom making vasts amounts of money by taking money from poor people and flogging them 'green' products produced in a country with the highest levels of greenhouse gases in the world - well that's ok then...0 -
Dakota Dan wrote: »€6500 is robbery, those early leafs had very bad range whatever the advertiser wants you to believe.
The advertiser is claiming a range of 90km per charge - not sure how they managed on that when they're living in south Kilkenny. Guessing they've a second vehicle in the family that has a bit more range!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It is immaterial what we do on Europe to reduce Global warming.Even if we all went back to donkey and carts and reduced Europe population by 50% we would still have Global warming. This is because until countries that are increasing emissions like the US we are at nothing. . If the US put a dollor a gallon on petrol about 20c/ L it would do more to prevent global warming than all the messing we do. Add into that China, Australia and the rest of Asia expanding at a phenomenal rate and you see tge real issue. Oil producing countries selling petrol at 20-30c/L is another huge issue.
Slava Ukrainii
0 -
Right wing newspaper reposts right wing video that suits their agenda.
What's surprising about that?
That you missed the bit that it is simply video footage.
Certainly I see no sign of any 'right' wingers in that video lol - unless you are agreeing with the chap being filmed who is calling the police doing their job - 'racist pigs'?0 -
For people on low incomes, there are schemes out there to help them to upgrade their homes and heating systems to allow them to reduce their carbon footprint and avoid lots of these taxes.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Carbon taxes are regressive though, so there needs to be a carrot too.
On air travel you can’t have people swanning around on private jets if normal people are restricted from flying by high taxes.
We still waste enormous amounts of energy because it's too cheap for people to bother turning off their heating when it's not needed. I know people who sit in their house with the heating on and the windows open because they're too hot.
The carbon taxes work on multiple levels though, they incentivize consumers to choose more energy efficient products which in turn incentivizes producers to produce more environmentally friendly goods and services. Airlines will upgrade their fleets to reduce their own carbon tax bills.0 -
Dakota Dan wrote: »Only climate scientists have the ability to predict the future up to a century ahead, imagine if financial advisors could do that.
Actually astronomers can predict the future about a thousand years in advance. If you're still around on April 26 in the year 3000 at around 1pm in central Europe, look up and you'll see an Eclipse.
Climate scientists can't 'predict the future' but they have a good understanding of the link between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the global average temperature. The more CO2 we pollute, the higher the global average temperature
The link is unequivocal and the only escape route for the 'skeptics' is that there might be a negative feedback that might kick in somewhere to mask the heating from the greenhouse effect. Problem is, they have tried to prove such a negative feedback many times, and have ever been successful. These are people who cannot prove their own theories, but cannot stop believing in them despite the lack of proof. There are cranks and idealogues who may perhaps have been eminent scientists at one time, but their opinions have since diverged from the evidence, and are no longer scientifically valid.
The simple truth is that every single reputable scientific body in the world accepts the reality of climate change and if you choose to believe the small number of cranks, idealogues and shills who disagree without providing any credible evidence, then you need to provide very strong arguments and evidence justify that belief0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59263
Actually astronomers can predict the future about a thousand years in advance. If you're still around on April 26 in the year 3000 at around 1pm in central Europe, look up and you'll see an Eclipse.
Climate scientists can't 'predict the future' but they have a good understanding of the link between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the global average temperature. The more CO2 we pollute, the higher the global average temperature
The link is unequivocal and the only escape route for the 'skeptics' is that there might be a negative feedback that might kick in somewhere to mask the heating from the greenhouse effect. Problem is, they have tried to prove such a negative feedback many times, and have ever been successful. These are people who cannot prove their own theories, but cannot stop believing in them despite the lack of proof. There are cranks and idealogues who may perhaps have been eminent scientists at one time, but their opinions have since diverged from the evidence, and are no longer scientifically valid.
The simple truth is that every single reputable scientific body in the world accepts the reality of climate change and if you choose to believe the small number of cranks, idealogues and shills who disagree without providing any credible evidence, then you need to provide very strong arguments and evidence justify that belief
Yep, I remember a few years ago the big name scientist that was a skeptic (can't remember his name) decided to test all the data for mistakes or bias himself. He found that the increase in CO2 levels caused by humans directly accounted for the rise in temperature and promptly switched sides. There is not even a consensus amongst those that disagree. It's not like the 3% of scientists have a singular unified competing theory, they have loads of theories that don't have good evidence and over which they disagree with each other.
AFAIK, one of the reasons it is so serious is that at some point there is a cascade of the temperature getting hotter, in turn causing more CO2 to be released, which raises the temperate again and more CO2 to be released etc, a cycle that at that point can't be stopped by humans.0 -
Actually astronomers can predict the future about a thousand years in advance. If you're still around on April 26 in the year 3000 at around 1pm in central Europe, look up and you'll see an Eclipse.
Climate scientists can't 'predict the future' but they have a good understanding of the link between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the global average temperature. The more CO2 we pollute, the higher the global average temperature. The link is unequivocal and the only escape route for the 'skeptics' is that there might be a negative feedback that might kick in somewhere to mask the heating from the greenhouse effect. Problem is, they have tried to prove such a negative feedback many times, and have ever been successful. These are people who cannot prove their own theories, but cannot stop believing in them despite the lack of proof. There are cranks and idealogues who may perhaps have been eminent scientists at one time, but their opinions have since diverged from the evidence, and are no longer scientifically valid.
The simple truth is that every single reputable scientific body in the world accepts the reality of climate change and if you choose to believe the small number of cranks, idealogues and shills who disagree without providing any credible evidence, then you need to provide very strong arguments and evidence justify that belief
Leaving aside peer reviewed scientific studies on climate change - of which many remain far from agreement with regard to any one definitive future scenario.
The thing is much of your criticism appears to be reserved for those who question the bandwaggoning of these predictions by vested interests. That a lot of what is being pushed in the name of climate change is thinly disguised marketing does not seem to bother some at all. In fact those who offer any criticism are deemed "cranks, idealogues and shills . Funny that.0 -
In an EV, the electric motors themselves will work for a million miles with barely any servicing, the depreciation will be related to the interior of the car rather than any moving parts wearing out, which makes them more servicable than ICE cars which have big expensive engine components that start to wear out due to age. Gearbox, clutch, timing belts and chains, fan belts, the gaskets pistons and driveshafts can all fail over time.Not so fast - the ICE was a major factor in the democratisation of car travel. In particular, cars of the 20th century, especially the 1990s, were basically big lumps of worthless steel, plastic and fabric. Very simple engineering. As a consequence, some cars depreciated to basically nothing while still being nearly as good as new. Especially those old Toyotas, they'd cost €1000-€2000 to buy, their paintwork might have seen better days, their plastic fittings might look a bit shabby, and so on. But they'd get you where you wanted to go, no problem and didn't cost a lot to maintain. I know this from first hand experience.
But even with todays regulations on ICEs that's a lot more difficult. The engineering is much more hifalutin, there's much more than go wrong and is more expensive to fix, and certain parts often require precious metals, more so than in the past, which keeps costs high. As a consequence, if you're a working class person looking for an average 10 year old car, you're going to have to pay a lot more and deal with a lot problems than you might have had to attempting to do the same thing in the last decade.
I view electric cars as a natural extension of this. While the car platforms themselves may be cost effective and may even depreciate beyond their effective usefulness the way 20th century ICE cars did, there is one MASSIVE achilles heel - the battery. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than a fuel tank and it always will be. Batteries may have room for improvement, but I suspect that there is a limit to this room, and that it will be found sooner rather than later.
Not many people have €6500 lying around the back of their couch. At any rate, for that money I suspect its batteries are in ****e. So, expensive and probably useless.
Great. When you can guarantee a working class person an EV that's nearly as good as new despite being 10 years old for almost nothing - the way you could with 1990s ICE cars in the noughties - then - and only then - it's time to talk about banning ICEs.
The only real issue is the cost of the batteries?
Why are electric car batteries so expensive?
Because the raw materials are expensive and the R&D is expensive and manufacturing plants are still in their infancy. When there are established infrastructure for either reconditioning EV batteries, or recycling them into new batteries the costs will become way lower. And if you replace the battery on a 10 year old EV, the car will be like new (if the interior, suspension, brakes and bodywork are still ok)
Add to this the fact that people could lease an EV battery if the initial cost of buying one remains high and because the running costs are so low, low income households could still run an EV for less than the cost of an ICE over the medium term.0 -
Should we not also be critical of and 'not give a platform' to the vested interests riding on the back of 'climate change' as promoted by pro climate change ideologues and shrills?
Of course we should be critical and skeptical of any individual or company who is trying to sell a service
There are shysters and snake oil salesmen in every industry and in all walks of life. Of course we should be skeptical and make well informed and researched decisions on where to invest our money.
The academics and scientists who are warning us about climate change are not shills, they're paid to do science, not to promote any industry or product.
When there are 'think tanks' promoting 'studies' that they pay for themselves using very carefully selected scientists who have a history of providing useful studies for different industries, you should look carefully at how rigorous those studies really were.0 -
That you missed the bit that it is simply video footage.
How could I have missed the bit that it's a video?
You can edit video to tell you anything you want. The fact that the Sun posts videos, that are edited, which suit their agenda means nothing. Except that their views are aligned with your own confirmation bias.0 -
Dakota Dan wrote: »€6500 is robbery, those early leafs had very bad range whatever the advertiser wants you to believe.
Whatever, I'm not going to get into a debate about how good the early leafs are. I'm just showing that today EVs are available to people outside the upper and upper middle class income bracket, in 10 years time, the best EVs on the market today will be on sale in the 2nd hand market at similar prices to used ICE cars today. And if the battery is worn out, the resale price will reflect the cost of replacing it0 -
Advertisement
-
How could I have missed the bit that it's a video?
You can edit video to tell you anything you want. The fact that the Sun posts videos, that are edited, which suit their agenda means nothing. Except that their views are aligned with your own confirmation bias.
I doubt very much anyone would believe the video has been edited video to have an Extinction Rebellion activist appear to be shouting 'Racist Pig at the police. Or are you so naive or disingenuous to try and claim otherwise? And that is just one part of that video which shows the joke that is this protest.
And btw the video was posted on Youtube before the media published it. That the footage shows this shower for what they really are is good. If that does not suit you or their 'agenda' - why do you think that is?0 -
It is within the bounds of accepted human behaviour that people will put their family and their own security before that of strangers - that is human nature - no more. Penalising people for that through the imposition of taxes so that they will be more "motivated by market mechanisms" is bull****e.
It's not penalising anyone, it's using taxation as part of government policy to promote desirable outcomes. The government needs to reduce carbon emissions, it could do so through strict regulations, or it can do so by using market forces to motivate citizens to change their behaviour. Just like increasing the tax on cigarettes is supposed to get people to quit, putting a tax on plastic bags gets people to stop littering them everywhere, putting taxes on importing cars from abroad (VRT) reduces the number of people importing cheap cars from abroad (protectionism but still government policy)As for the constant hyperbole that " food shortages are absolutely one of the major potential consequences of climate change in the coming decades"(sic)
'Potential' - 'could' - might - 'food shortages' etc etc etc
It remains that any future deficit in in the worlds ability to produce food is at best an unknown and yet this is repeatedly being used as a means of scaremongering.
At present - there is no global shortage of food, rather there is localised food insecurity largely caused by corruption, poverty and local inequalities with regard to food distribution.
To conflate current global food insecurity with a postulated outcome of some unknown point in the future is not only alarmist propaganda - it serves no purpose in a rational debate.
See: https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/
Is it scaremongering to say that people who smoke have an increased risk of dying of cancer or getting COPD?
Does everyone who smokes get COPD or cancer? No, it's not certain, it's just an increased risk due to the damage that cigarette smoke does to the human body.
Well allowing 2, 3, 4 degrees celsius of additional warming due to climate change poses massive risks to our ability to grow food in the future. Many of the places that are our breadbaskets today could become inhospitable for food production and the places where the climate may become more hospitable may not be fertile enough to take up the slack
The midwest in America, as just one example of many
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/12/as-climate-change-bites-in-americas-midwest-farmers-are-desperate-to-ring-the-alarm0 -
Of course we should be critical and skeptical of any individual or company who is trying to sell a service
There are shysters and snake oil salesmen in every industry and in all walks of life. Of course we should be skeptical and make well informed and researched decisions on where to invest our money.
The academics and scientists who are warning us about climate change are not shills, they're paid to do science, not to promote any industry or product. When there are 'think tanks' promoting 'studies' that they pay for themselves using very carefully selected scientists who have a history of providing useful studies for different industries, you should look carefully at how rigorous those studies really were.
Fair enough however the point is that this thread is not about the scientists and their predictions for the future. It's about the influencers (such as Gore and others) of a movement which is based on thinly disguised doomsday propaganda and those most benefiting from and which people need to look carefully at before jumping on the "if you're not with us - you're against climate change action" bandwagon.0 -
It's not penalising anyone, it's using taxation as part of government policy to promote desirable outcomes. The government needs to reduce carbon emissions, it could do so through strict regulations, or it can do so by using market forces to motivate citizens to change their behaviour. Just like increasing the tax on cigarettes is supposed to get people to quit, putting a tax on plastic bags gets people to stop littering them everywhere, putting taxes on importing cars from abroad (VRT) reduces the number of people importing cheap cars from abroad (protectionism but still government policy) Is it scaremongering to say that people who smoke have an increased risk of dying of cancer or getting COPD?Does everyone who smokes get COPD or cancer? No, it's not certain, it's just an increased risk due to the damage that cigarette smoke does to the human body.
It is also important to ask what behaviour 'needs' to be changed and who is seeking this change. Direct health issues such as smoking are not comparable to altering someones right to provide and protect for their family which is what the previous poster referred to.Well allowing 2, 3, 4 degrees celsius of additional warming due to climate change poses massive risks to our ability to grow food in the future. Many of the places that are our breadbaskets today could become inhospitable for food production and the places where the climate may become more hospitable may not be fertile enough to take up the slack
The midwest in America, as just one example of many
Again that is postulation. 'Could / might / may' is not scientific fact. It's little more than scaremongering at this point in time. We could all be wiped out by influenza next winter.
*
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1092514/disease-x-virus-spanish-flu-what-is-it
*Please note the choice of publication is deliberate ...0 -
I
At present - there is no global shortage of food, rather there is localised food insecurity largely caused by corruption, poverty and local inequalities with regard to food distribution.
The arab spring was caused by crops failing due to climate change.
Te simplest argument for global warming is the fact that 98% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC's findings. Those are
1) Climate change is real
2) it's getting worse
3) it's manmade.
Only 0.3% of scientists disagree.
It's real. It's happening right now. It's already affected us, and the effects are just going to get worse.0 -
The arab spring was caused by crops failing due to climate change.
I believe you will find that far from any definitive statement- the report put together by researchers from the Center for American Progress, the Center for Climate and Security and the Stimson Center who examined the role of climate change in the Middle East's upheaval during 2010 / 2011 stated that:"The Arab Spring would likely have come one way or another, but the context in which it did is not inconsequential. Global warming may not have caused the Arab Spring, but it may have made it come earlier," the report says.
As for this -Grayson wrote:The simplest argument for global warming is the fact that 98% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC's findings. Those are1) Climate change is real2) it's getting worse3) it's manmade. Only 0.3% of scientists disagree. It's real. It's happening right now. It's already affected us, and the effects are just going to get worse.
Funnily despite those that would disagree - that's not what is being argued here. See previous.
At present it remains that there is no global shortage of food, rather there is localised food insecurity largely caused by corruption, poverty and local inequalities with regard to food distribution.0 -
Climate action is nonsense.
As long as people pretend the population growth is not the problem you'll continue seeing temperatures rise.
People won't do what is required, i.e restrictions on conception, restrictions on flights etc.
No, instead they'll whinge about Lidl on facebook still having a plastic bags for their bananas.
Take a look at flightradar24 at any stage and tell me how much sucking from a paper straw is saving the world.0 -
For people on low incomes, there are schemes out there to help them to upgrade their homes and heating systems to allow them to reduce their carbon footprint and avoid lots of these taxes.
We still waste enormous amounts of energy because it's too cheap for people to bother turning off their heating when it's not needed. I know people who sit in their house with the heating on and the windows open because they're too hot.
The carbon taxes work on multiple levels though, they incentivize consumers to choose more energy efficient products which in turn incentivizes producers to produce more environmentally friendly goods and services. Airlines will upgrade their fleets to reduce their own carbon tax bills.
That’s fine for most things and if airlines did upgrade that’s cool, however they can only be carbon neutral with biofuel which has other ethical problems.
If a carbon tax is going to work it has to change behaviour. It will mostly do this on the poor. Hence yellow vests.0 -
All these grants etc. people list to claim the government have given incentives are no use.
People still have to spend thousands of euro of their own money.
Why should I have to spend 10 thousand on upgrading my heating system when I'm happy spending 300 euro a year burning turf?0 -
Advertisement
-
The cult exploitation of the vulnerable took another step when Miss Trunburg was chosen to be exploited to promote their doomsday dogma. I really feel sorry for the autistic young Swedish woman who is clearly being used. It is obvious that she has become consumed by fear, the fear of doomsday generated by the cult. The vacant thousand yard stare, the scripted monotone responces, etc .0
Advertisement