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

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not much use as an analogy absurdly marrying as it does too utterly unrelated activities. Nudging rather than barracking is the way forward.

We don't have the time.

is_that_so wrote: »

Africa too will eventually get there too. The average rates have been dropping since the 1960s. Addressing levels of poverty will reduce it more quickly.

What!! That is totally untrue and the opposite of reality.

https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.ft.com/content/868e20d0-90ec-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F868e20d0-90ec-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2

biko wrote: »

How about you just come out and say it - Africa
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
Most Western countries already have fertility rates below 2

Africa too will eventually get there too. The average rates have been dropping since the 1960s. Addressing levels of poverty will reduce it more quickly.

This is why it's such a big problem.

Our capatilist society is not conducive to sustainability.

I'm no socialist/communist but we need to find a way where prioritising the environment is way higher in the order of priorities than it currently is. (Not suggesting socialist/communist societies would inherently be better for the environment either.)

CinemaGuy45

biko wrote: »

How about you just come out and say it - MENA
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
Most Western countries already have fertility rates below 2

Jesus thoughtcrime there lucky for us all you spotted it.:rolleyes:

Do you think people who can not afford to feed or look after children should be having more than two?

biko

Blueshoe wrote: »

Worldwide ban on having more than 2 children per couple is step 1

How about you just come out and say it - MENA
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
Most Western countries already have fertility rates below 2, it's time for the developing nations to step up and shoulder their responsibility.

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you see now the relevance of my analogy about fly tipping while picking up litter when walking the dog?

We need massive change, somehow. The above should be encouraged, but we need the majority of people to do it. Not just isolated cases which people use to absolve themselves from more serious action.

It's not much use as an analogy absurdly marrying as it does too utterly unrelated activities. Nudging rather than barracking is the way forward.

Blueshoe wrote: »

Worldwide ban on having more than 2 children per couple is step 1

Not a non-natalist! Who's going to pay for the pensions or do the work?

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you see now the relevance of my analogy about fly tipping while picking up litter when walking the dog?

We need massive change, somehow.

Worldwide ban on having more than 2 children per couple is step 1

is_that_so wrote: »

Every little helps! Actual things being done is good. Pie in the sky notions just stay there and proselytizing sends people into a stupor.

Do you see now the relevance of my analogy about fly tipping while picking up litter when walking the dog?

We need massive change, somehow. The above should be encouraged, but we need the majority of people to do it. Not just isolated cases which people use to absolve themselves from more serious action.

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow. Panic averted. These really are revolutionary and will have a massive positive impact.

Every little helps! Actual things being done is good. Pie in the sky notions just stay there and proselytizing sends people into a stupor.

Blueshoe wrote: »

Waste of time and effort. Akin to trying to stop the tide with a paper cup. (Recycled of course)

Well, I can see there'd be problems with you on the project team!

is_that_so wrote: »

SF 49ers have banned single use bottles, Molson are taking plastic out of the beer packs at a cost of €8m and Supervalue have introduced a reusable compostible bag! The Guardian, too, has a bag with its weekend supplement made out of potato starch.

Wow. Panic averted. These really are revolutionary and will have a massive positive impact.

is_that_so wrote: »

SF 49ers have banned single use bottles, Molson are taking plastic out of the beer packs at a cost of €8m and Supervalue have introduced a reusable compostible bag! The Guardian, too, has a bag with its weekend supplement made out of potato starch.
Who said Brexit was a long term problem, although it could be medium term? It is however an immediate problem and has the potential to cost a lot of money, money then not available to go on other things. There's no silver bullet in this whole issue and it will come through lots and lots of small increments, like any project.

Waste of time and effort. Akin to trying to stop the tide with a paper cup. (Recycled of course)

Tell me how wrote: »

What ideas did you see this week? Please, enlighten us.
Are they reversing or halting damage or just better than what we have been doing?

If you think Brexit is a bigger long term problem than the climate issue, you don't understand the situation.

Brexit is much more immediate and rightly getting immediate attention but the climate issue is global, and harder to recover from.

SF International airport have banned single use bottles, Molson are taking plastic out of the beer packs at a cost of €8m and Supervalue have introduced a reusable compostible bag! The Guardian, too, has a bag with its weekend supplement made out of potato starch.
Who said Brexit was a long term problem, although it could be medium term? It is however an immediate problem and has the potential to cost a lot of money, money then not available to go on other things. There's no silver bullet in this whole issue and it will come through lots and lots of small increments, like any project.

recedite wrote: »

:pac:
May as well go out with a bang, eh?
You can't take the planet with you, after all.

I wouldn't worry though. We'll have fusion reactors for supplying all our power by then, and greenhouse gases will be an endangered species.
That's assuming we haven't all become Nigerian/Somalis and reverted back to third world technologies.

One can only dream.

is_that_so wrote: »

These are absolutely absurd examples and I'd suggest you read more about the potential instant effect of Brexit. If you're really comparing them you are not living in the real world at all. You do seem to be an all or nothing proponent. I saw three good ideas this week which have been implemented. That to me is a good thing and at the risk of repeating myself these things take time but they are happening all around us.

What ideas did you see this week? Please, enlighten us.
Are they reversing or halting damage or just better than what we have been doing?

If you think Brexit is a bigger long term problem than the climate issue, you don't understand the situation.

Brexit is much more immediate and rightly getting immediate attention but the climate issue is global, and harder to recover from.

recedite

Blueshoe wrote: »

Sooner the better. Although scientists told us that if we didn't change our ways we would all be underwater by the year 2000.

Il be dead by 2070 give or take unless I die early. But I'd like to see the planet go with me.

:pac:
May as well go out with a bang, eh?
You can't take the planet with you, after all.

I wouldn't worry though. We'll have fusion reactors for supplying all our power by then, and greenhouse gases will be an endangered species.
That's assuming we haven't all become Nigerian/Somalis and reverted back to third world technologies.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't think you understand how Greta has helped to drawn attention to the need for action in this space since she started. (Don't say we knew about it already, we did, but were giving in piecemeal attention as the situation escalated)

It's insulting to suggest she needs to wait until she's older when time is such a critical element.

I totally understand how Greta has drawn attention to the need for action in this space, and I didn’t say she needs to wait until she’s older. I said her interests would be best served by being encouraged to go back to school and focus on her studies, and then when she’s older, she can engage in all the activism she wants.

It’s insulting to my intelligence to suggest I should listen to a child telling me they’re not going back to school unless they see me giving a shìte about climate change. Since when do we permit children to dictate to adults how to run their lives? Greta’s parents might allow that for fear of alienating themselves from their daughter, and her supporters might permit her to tell everyone that she wants people to panic and be scared like she is, but I don’t see any reason why I should entertain a child’s insecurities? I don’t think it’s healthy for that child or for any child to instill that sort of fear in them.

Perhaps when Greta gains some knowledge of science herself or economics, that might allay her fears of impending doom and gloom from a child’s perspective. That’s what I mean by it serving her best interests to go back to school and focus on her studies, she might actually learn something herself and contribute to society in a meaningful way when she’s older and has gained some perspective.

It’s one thing to say we should listen to scientists, it’s quite something else to try and spread guilt and fear among people in order to try and coerce them into compliance with campaigners demands. That might work for Greta on her parents, and it suits other people’s purposes to pretend Greta has this almighty power to command people’s attention, but it doesn’t work outside of their own ecobubble - simply because they lack critical mass - there aren’t enough adults who buy into their nonsense, and the children who will follow anything will soon forget about the doom and gloom that Greta and her campaigners and supporters are perpetuating. Greta will be back at square one too with none of her school friends interested in having anything to do with her cause, they’ll have moved on to the next trending cause already.

Pa ElGrande

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

Jaysus. I'm going to trust the thousand upon thousands of scientists. Thanks.

That is a lie. Your beliefs like most others revolve around the headlines that promote the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conspiracy theory. If you understood the science behind the concept of greenhouse gases you could explain the physics and chemistry behind the science and what the bounds are, the uncertainties and knowing that you would be a lot less certain and a lot more cautious.

Tell me how wrote: »

Any changes which have emerged only are slowing down the rate at which the problem is getting worse.

Say you fly tipped all your household rubbish, picking up a tayto bag and tin of coke as you walked your dog wouldn't negate that.

In the greater scheme of things, the impact of climate upheaval will be greater than Brexit (crazy and frightening as that is for many).

These are absolutely absurd examples and I'd suggest you read more about the potential instant effect of Brexit. If you're really comparing them you are not living in the real world at all. You do seem to be an all or nothing proponent. I saw three good ideas this week which have been implemented. That to me is a good thing and at the risk of repeating myself these things take time but they are happening all around us.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When is Ireland going to warm up.

Sooner the better. Although scientists told us that if we didn't change our ways we would all be underwater by the year 2000.

Il be dead by 2070 give or take unless I die early. But I'd like to see the planet go with me.

is_that_so wrote: »

There is that concept of world knowledge she just can't have at that age(Look at what I'd tell my teenage self thread for evidence of it!). Piecemeal is also part of it, in thousands of different little ways because it is actually being done. Every day some small change emerges and it all helps. I also think you're insulting a lot of people if you imagine nobody ever talked about or knew about it before this child appeared.
As for her comments on Brexit it has the potential to immediately affect an awful lot of people. A lot of adults would be quite concerned if the EU weren't talking about Brexit all the time- but it doesn't mean other things have been discarded.

Any changes which have emerged only are slowing down the rate at which the problem is getting worse.

Say you fly tipped all your household rubbish, picking up a tayto bag and tin of coke as you walked your dog wouldn't negate that.

In the greater scheme of things, the impact of climate upheaval will be greater than Brexit (crazy and frightening as that is for many).

https://media3.giphy.com/media/WceJhr8WHsz1C/giphy.gif

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

If you actually read the guardian you'd know 99% of articles about man made climate change don't mention her and have nothing to do with her.

I suppose you wouldn't know that though.

Nah , been a reader a very long time. All very OTT on it these days IMO - a veritable crusade. But it's been that way for a while on a whole lot of "current issues". Still a good quality paper though.

Dakota Dan

friendlyfun wrote: »

The brave men attacking a child is deplorable. Bo doubt she's achieved at 16 is more than what her detractors will do in their sad, sordid lives.

MarquisDeSad

is_that_so wrote: »

Well, if you're a Guardian reader she has been the anointed one for some time!

If you actually read the guardian you'd know 99% of articles about man made climate change don't mention her and have nothing to do with her.

I suppose you wouldn't know that though.

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

That is insulting to anyone reading this intelligence. Are are you really comparing the child crusades to this?. Wtf.

Well, if you're a Guardian reader she has been the anointed one for some time!

[Deleted User]

When is Ireland going to warm up.