suicide_circus wrote: » this issue has been front and centre of global media pretty consistently for at least the last 30 years. i was taught it in school 20 years ago. we dont need Greta to highlight anything, thanks.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » And what harm is she doing anyone? We really do need the issues highlighted as much as possible because it's looking like all of this isn't going to end well.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Capitalism is what's causing this mess
KyussB wrote: » Have people copped that that fighting climate change, requires a level of direct government involvement and spending in the economy, rarely seen outside of an existential war threat? Bernie/AOC's Green New Deal etc.?
Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);
meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including— (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading existing renewable power sources; and (ii) by deploying new capacity;
gozunda wrote: » Non capitalist countries including what is the former USSR and others have an appaling track record of pollution and environmental degradation. Do not think for a moment that the current economic system here is somehow the only bete noir. China is the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases world wide. And per capita they are on par or above the EU average for emissions. But hey dont let any of that stop the ranting ....
KyussB wrote: » I haven't paid attention to Boards for a long time, now. Have people copped that that fighting climate change, requires a level of direct government involvement and spending in the economy, rarely seen outside of an existential war threat? Bernie/AOC's Green New Deal etc.? That's what is different to the last 'x' number of decades of climate change warnings - but has it even taken hold in a single posters consciousness, here? Or are we still at the "it's too expensive to fight climate change despite the fact that it will cost us far more if we don't fight it now" stage? Do people still fail to realize that fighting climate change, requires completely reforming mainstream economic views, in a way that permanently ends the fetish for austerity and budget-balancing policies? It's impossible to mobilize the scale of economic resources needed for fighting climate change now, without doing this first - as it requires a level of direct government intervention/spending that is almost literally unthinkable to most people, today - and is especially difficult to achieve, without reforming the EU itself, too (given its bias towards austerity/budget-balancing, and lack of a central fiscal power proportional to a national government)
joe40 wrote: » You're probably right and not only large scale government intervention, change in economic models but this also has to be on a global level. I think it is probably too late. Your "time of war" analogy is good but in that scenario there is an obvious enemy. In this case the enemy is basically our lifestyle and our reliance on fossil fuels. I'm no saint, I'm not willing to unilaterally give up my lifestyle since that will have no effect. At this stage individual actions by a minority of the population are token gestures there needs to be international global action. Technological advances in renewables will happen, but there is still large scale opposition to any change. It is analogous to a smoker saying I'll stop when a tumour is detected. That is us with climate change, when it becomes obvious it will be too late. Maybe we're already at that stage.
joe40 wrote: » ction. It is analogous to a smoker saying I'll stop when a tumour is detected. That is us with climate change, when it becomes obvious it will be too late. Maybe we're already at that stage.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » The recent podcast on the environment in Eamon Dunphy"s show was frankly terrifying. I mean all you climate change deniers surely know the earth is finite and everything is disappearing rapidly? Forests, wildlife etc.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Yep we'd need to slow the economy down worldwide probably causing a global depression. We'd need to lower our standards of living to save the planet, change our diets, and limit our lifestyles bigtime. We're not going to do any of these things however because who's going to vote for that? We'll keep going as we are until all hell breaks loose. So no one need worry, Greta isn't going to change anything, I still admire her for trying though.
Stevieluvsye wrote: » Education not preaching is the answer in my humblest of opinions
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Nah, there is no answer, we're too inherently greedy and don't think in the long term. The best thing you can do is not have kids at this stage.
Stevieluvsye wrote: » Yep i agree but on a personal level if you look at the approach sky used with the Oceans and that has started to work or at least make a differance with plastics and what not
The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue. <snip> Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that - although scientifically dubious - ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA is the world’s most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician. Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power. And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible. So, early in her global warming campaign - and at her personal instigation - the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1). Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments. Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource. Available research funds were shrinking, and global warming had become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments. Hence, any case for funding support tended to include reference to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming. Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. Now, funds for this work are provided to most UK Universities and several commercial research establishments.source
Thelonious Monk wrote: » We're producing more and more plastic by the day, apparently the amount is going to double in the coming years too. We're drowning ourselves in the stuff.
Kimsang wrote: » Australia introduced a carbon tax and had to repeal it. France had a progressive carbon tax to reduce reliability on hydrocarbons, they have been protesting since 18 Nov 2018. What do you propose to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, that doesn't take food out of people's mouths? Aoc's Green new deal reads like less of a real resolution and more like day-care musings from a grievance studies student. This just means everyone except rich white men. AOC is hilarious. The problem is the intermittent availability of clean energy. Its nearly impossible to have more than a certain amount of the grid dependent on 'clean' power, depending on the region it's about 30-40%. As soon as it goes over , the price vastly increases because the supply of clean energy is intermittent. What really would be a game changer for climate change is when someone (possibly the chinese) invent a new battery that can make better use of the clean energy that we can harvest. Then we can really start producing wind farms/solar cells etc.. Also I heard James Dyson bought out a company developing a new solid state battery and has been working on it for a few years now. Quite a considerable amount of cash invested in the project.
KyussB wrote: » Australia and France's efforts are pissing in the wind...
Pa ElGrande wrote: » You can listen to it on soundcloud here (45 minutes). Initial thoughts: It's an interview with a nuclear industry lobbyist masquerading as an NGO and Irish medias go to talking person for climate alarmism - John Gibbons. I'll finish listening when I have the time later. Have to laugh at the 180 degree backflip from the greens.Global Warming: How It All Began Richard Courtney
