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

Why do people focus on the small/individual/loosly-connected things when discussing solutions to climate change?

Peoples focus needs to start from the top-down, at a macroeconomic scale - with the individual solutions slotting in, the further down you go.

Popularising solutions to climate change 100% has to start with a universal understanding that:
1: It requires massive mobilization of labour and resources in the economy, starting immediately, and redirecting them into efforts at fighting climate change.

2: This has to be done at a scale and in a timely enough manner, that the private sector has proven itself incapable of - which means it requires direct government action to achieve this.

3: It is impossible for governments to do this, in todays politically dominant form of economics, which fetishize austerity/budget-balancing. Governments at wartime never fail to mobilize at this scale - we already know it's possible and the alternative economics needed, it's just not politically palatable to the powerful - we need to bring about this change in economic views/practice before we can properly mobilize to fight climate change (and unfortunately, this requires changing how the EU functions first as well, because it has austerity/budget-balancing-biases built in...).

Everything else that people are discussing, nuclear vs other forms of power, individual steps to limit your contribution to climate change, etc. etc. - it's all a pointless discussion unless you understand and are pushing the above, first - because all those other things won't happen in time, at the scale needed, without the above coming first.

You can not stop and reverse our contribution to climate change in time, without a war-time-level mobilization - which is blocked by what I describe above - so everybody needs to make that priority no.1, and be maximally politically active about primarily that.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

You can not stop and reverse our contribution to climate change in time, without a war-time-level mobilization

We don't have evidence for this. We don't yet know our contribution to climate change.

We obviously need to reduce pollution and any technology that leads to cleaner air and water is good but to put the planet on a war level footing to do some unknown thing to meet some unknown target would be madness.

Lots more research is whats needed.

Latest update:

Arrival in New York has been delayed by rough weather.

I wonder how the poo bucket is faring out ...

https://www.thelocal.se/20190827/stormy-seas-delay-greta-thunbergs-arrival-in-new-york

KyussB wrote: »

Why do people focus on the small/individual/loosly-connected things when discussing solutions to climate change?

Peoples focus needs to start from the top-down, at a macroeconomic scale - with the individual solutions slotting in, the further down you go.

Popularising solutions to climate change 100% has to start with a universal understanding that:
1: It requires massive mobilization of labour and resources in the economy, starting immediately, and redirecting them into efforts at fighting climate change.

2: This has to be done at a scale and in a timely enough manner, that the private sector has proven itself incapable of - which means it requires direct government action to achieve this.

3: It is impossible for governments to do this, in todays politically dominant form of economics, which fetishize austerity/budget-balancing. Governments at wartime never fail to mobilize at this scale - we already know it's possible and the alternative economics needed, it's just not politically palatable to the powerful - we need to bring about this change in economic views/practice before we can properly mobilize to fight climate change (and unfortunately, this requires changing how the EU functions first as well, because it has austerity/budget-balancing-biases built in...).

Everything else that people are discussing, nuclear vs other forms of power, individual steps to limit your contribution to climate change, etc. etc. - it's all a pointless discussion unless you understand and are pushing the above, first - because all those other things won't happen in time, at the scale needed, without the above coming first.

You can not stop and reverse our contribution to climate change in time, without a war-time-level mobilization - which is blocked by what I describe above - so everybody needs to make that priority no.1, and be maximally politically active about primarily that.

To do exactly what?

jackboy wrote: »

We don't have evidence for this. We don't yet know our contribution to climate change.

We obviously need to reduce pollution and any technology that leads to cleaner air and water is good but to put the planet on a war level footing to do some unknown thing to meet some unknown target would be madness.

Lots more research is whats needed.

We know exactly what we need to do, and we have an exact target: We need to retrofit economies worldwide, to be carbon neutral by 2030 - then we need to push it further after that date, into being significantly carbon negative.

Putting the entire world economy on a 'war' level footing to engage in this, actually benefits everybody anyway - as done right, it ensures long lasting employment and opportunity to earn, for everyone (leading to a much more equitable distribution of wealth) - which is not something we have now, as prevalent long periods of unemployment are still a thing.

A person can even be a climate change denialist, while not being able to deny the economic benefits in that.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111083802&postcount=1614

gozunda wrote: »

To do exactly what?

is_that_so wrote: »

What are you? 10? Idiotic epithets do not add to any argument.

So what benifit has the carbon taxes to date made in ireland?
Where has this money been spent/invested?

What are the plans to spend the proposed addition carbon taxes on?

I have asked twice, now to different posters, about what global actions are needed to meet the "current" targets and the impact of these actions on economy and society as a whole.

What's the point in taking more taxes, if the current planned actions no where meet what is required?

I mean carbon offsets is the biggest scam of all time. I going to fly as often as I want and consume, consume, consume, but because I'm rich I can say I have zero carbon footprint and blame all those poor people who done nothing...... Well all that carbon still went into the atmosphere no matter how much you paid!

KyussB wrote: »

We know exactly what we need to do, and we have an exact target: We need to retrofit economies worldwide, to be carbon neutral by 2030 - then we need to push it further after that date, into being significantly carbon negative.

Putting the entire world economy on a 'war' level footing to engage in this, actually benefits everybody anyway - as done right, it ensures long lasting employment and opportunity to earn, for everyone (leading to a much more equitable distribution of wealth) - which is not something we have now, as prevalent long periods of unemployment are still a thing.

A person can even be a climate change denialist, while not being able to deny the economic benefits in that.

So what does this mean in real terms?

Are we still going to have 4k tv's, latest mobiles?
Still eat meat?
Designer clothes?
Car industry?

What will happen all the people who work in these industries?

For example, would McDonald's survive as a company, if we banned meat from 2020? How many job losses would they have?

Then think all all the other job losses across other companies, leading to struggle familes can't pay loans mortgages, failed banks failed economy failed society?

How much is actually needed, because not 1 government is proposing anything like this, just some extra taxes

is_that_so

KyussB wrote: »

Why do people focus on the small/individual/loosly-connected things when discussing solutions to climate change?

Peoples focus needs to start from the top-down, at a macroeconomic scale - with the individual solutions slotting in, the further down you go.

Popularising solutions to climate change 100% has to start with a universal understanding that:
1: It requires massive mobilization of labour and resources in the economy, starting immediately, and redirecting them into efforts at fighting climate change.

2: This has to be done at a scale and in a timely enough manner, that the private sector has proven itself incapable of - which means it requires direct government action to achieve this.

3: It is impossible for governments to do this, in todays politically dominant form of economics, which fetishize austerity/budget-balancing. Governments at wartime never fail to mobilize at this scale - we already know it's possible and the alternative economics needed, it's just not politically palatable to the powerful - we need to bring about this change in economic views/practice before we can properly mobilize to fight climate change (and unfortunately, this requires changing how the EU functions first as well, because it has austerity/budget-balancing-biases built in...).

Everything else that people are discussing, nuclear vs other forms of power, individual steps to limit your contribution to climate change, etc. etc. - it's all a pointless discussion unless you understand and are pushing the above, first - because all those other things won't happen in time, at the scale needed, without the above coming first.

You can not stop and reverse our contribution to climate change in time, without a war-time-level mobilization - which is blocked by what I describe above - so everybody needs to make that priority no.1, and be maximally politically active about primarily that.

And the actual solutions are what exactly? You've proposed nothing here. This type of soapbox speechifying may have people nodding their heads but is just noise without real world applications.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

We know exactly what we need to do, and we have an exact target: We need to retrofit economies worldwide, to be carbon neutral by 2030 - then we need to push it further after that date, into being significantly carbon negative.

You think we should do that without knowing the extent of human caused climate change. You do know that extreme climate change will still occur (as it always has) even if no humans lived on earth.

joe40

ForestFire wrote: »

So what benifit has the carbon taxes to date made in ireland?
Where has this money been spent/invested?

What are the plans to spend the proposed addition carbon taxes on?

I have asked twice, now to different posters, about what global actions are needed to meet the "current" targets and the impact of these actions on economy and society as a whole.

What's the point in taking more taxes, if the current planned actions no where meet what is required?

I mean carbon offsets is the biggest scam of all time. I going to fly as often as I want and consume, consume, consume, but because I'm rich I can say I have zero carbon footprint and blame all those poor people who done nothing...... Well all that carbon still went into the atmosphere no matter how much you paid!

I don't think any one person can give a definitive answer to that question. Firstly it would require experts in the fields of economics to have a stab at effects on world economies and even then you will get a range of answers.

In terms of targets the ultimate target is zero CO2 emissions, everything else is a compromise to mitigate effects. There is still uncertainty about the precise impact of climate change but all scenarios seem to be bad some worse than others

I do not have the expertise to come up with precise solutions and say exactly what impact these will have.

I do know that that governments on a global level need to listen to the people with the expertise, but ultimately democratic governments need public support and if this thread is anything to go by there is still a llot of opposition to doing anything.

I agree tinkering around the edges won't really help, but the dramatic interventions won't get public support.

Maybe it is simply too late.

is_that_so wrote: »

And the actual solutions are what exactly? You've proposed nothing here. This type of soapbox speechifying may have people nodding their heads but is just noise without real world applications.

Poster A: *Presents solutions*
Poster B in reply to A: Well, what are the solutions then? :rolleyes:

The denialists aims, in order of priority, are to:
1: Avoid discussing climate change altogether - divert the topic into anything other than this (such as alleged hypocrisy of Greta).

2: If they have to talk about it, debate whether or not it's an actual real problem (with a bias towards stating it's not a problem), instead of debating it is a real/valid issue.

3: If they have to acknowledge it as a real issue, pretend there are no solutions - if faced with actual solutions, continue saying "there are no solutions" as if nothing was said, with the unstated position behind that being "that disagrees with my political/ideological views so I'm going to lie and pretend no solutions were presented"

4: If they have to debate solutions, keep the discussion at a microscopic level, debating heatedly, individual solutions to very minor/individual issues that do not tackle the big picture.

5: If any solutions tackle the macroeconomic problems, persistently declare them as impractical/impossible (because this is the heart of the debate, the danger zone that threatens the interests of the powerful/wealthy) - divide posters along ideological lines - and bring it all the way down to Capitalist vs Communist dog whistling and howling, persistently painting posters into views they don't subscribe to.

It's a bloody tired script.

jackboy wrote: »

You think we should do that without knowing the extent of human caused climate change. You do know that extreme climate change will still occur (as it always has) even if no humans lived on earth.

What I've stated provides economic benefits to everybody, regardless of what people think about climate change - even denialists haven't got an argument against doing it, as the benefits are valid even after you completely sidestep the debate on the validity of climate change.

Thargor

gozunda wrote: »

Latest update:

Arrival in New York has been delayed by rough weather.

I wonder how the poo bucket is faring out ...

https://www.thelocal.se/20190827/stormy-seas-delay-greta-thunbergs-arrival-in-new-york

Do your family know you're on the internet discussing where a child defecates?

It's just so bizarre how one little girl attracts all the weirdos like this, what is happening? There have been schoolchild activists before a million times but it never got certain individuals all excited like this.

KyussB wrote: »

What I've stated provides economic benefits to everybody, regardless of what people think about climate change - even denialists haven't got an argument against doing it, as the benefits are valid even after you completely sidestep the debate on the validity of climate change.

Step 1 give vague idea of some radically fundamental change on world economy, society and governance.

Do t get me wrong, this could be the best idea since organically grown, co2 negative sliced bread on sustainable farming land, but we are still allowed to ask details about it and discuss possible issues.

Step 2 state yourself governments will not do it

Stepv3 poster interested in your ideas and asks for more details and clarifications

Step 4 instead of any engagement, direct become defensive and blame everyone else?

So can you tell us more about your ideas? How it could possible come about and what the negative impacts there will be (as there will be some) and how we seamlessly transfer over to all the benifits.

KyussB wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111083802&postcount=1614

Nope. That link to another of your extremly long winded posts says nothing about what this "massive mobilization of labour and resources in the economy, starting immediately, and redirecting them into efforts at fighting climate change" are going to be doing.

So are they to be given shovels or dusters? What exactly is this massive mobilised labour force going to be doing exactly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prrbooi9PNw

Thargor wrote: »

Do your family know you're on the internet discussing where a child defecates?It's just so bizarre how one little girl attracts all the weirdos like this, what is happening? There have been schoolchild activists before a million times but it never got certain individuals all excited like this.

Making it up with faux outrage are we?

Please point out exactly where in my comment there is a mention of any child defecating?

gozunda wrote: »

Latest update:

Arrival in New York has been delayed by rough weather.

I wonder how the poo bucket is faring out ...

https://www.thelocal.se/20190827/stormy-seas-delay-greta-thunbergs-arrival-in-new-york

You know what is seriously bizarre? Tripe like that. Seems to bring out 'weirdos' for sure. A humourous comment about the Blue bucket Which has been all over the tour of new world promotion material and they go off the deep end of the proverbial boat. So get a grip and dont try that ****e. Otherwise I might have to tell your mammy Tbh I've never seem such reactionary crap written in defence of the ridiculous ever. But there you go.

Seems some have only one thing on the mind for sure. But ya if you are concerned - there's more than one person on that boat flinging their **** into the ocean. Lovely way to treat mother nature..

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Poster A: *Presents solutions*
Poster B in reply to A: Well, what are the solutions then? :rolleyes:

. . . .

It's a bloody tired script.

Greta Thunbergs impairment makes her open to this particular exploitation by unscrupulous people that are intent on abusing her vulnerability for propaganda purposes for which they intend to benefit financially. It is sickening the technique was used in the twentieth century, that people still fall for it simply because it suits the narrative they have bought into.

For your information there was an attempt to remake society on a mass scale in the twentieth century, it was called the Soviet Union and millions died.

What the green blob is calling for is to tear up complex systems built up over decades and remodel all human societies based on their vision of utopia. World war II was a period of chaos millions died and mostly non- combatants. You want to unleash chaos? How many millions or billions of deaths are acceptable to you in pursuit of this nefarious utopia based on the dubious and unproven hypothesis described as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

In general since the planet has emerged from the last cold cycle (Dalton Minimum) the health and well-being of humanity has improved immeasurably compared with those of our ancestors. In the last 20 years alone over a billion people have been lifted out of poverty. Do you really want to go back to "when the climate was perfect"? I certainly don't and the possibility that we might does worry me, but not as much as the attempts of people to re-engineer society based on their invalid apocalyptic beliefs - the history of the twentieth century shows clearly this leads to mass death, destruction and reduction of living standards for the survivors.

You want to make the world a better place, well start here.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

What I've stated provides economic benefits to everybody, regardless of what people think about climate change - even denialists haven't got an argument against doing it, as the benefits are valid even after you completely sidestep the debate on the validity of climate change.

That claim about economic benefits is not credible.

The religious language (denialists) is not helping the debate either.

KyussB wrote: »

Poster A: *Presents a load of waffle as the way forward
Poster B in reply to A: Wtf? :rolleyes:

Everyone who asks poster A to clarify or hell forbid disagrees with poster A is a >>>>denialist<<<<<

It's a bloody tired script.....

FYP

ForestFire wrote: »

Step 1 give vague idea of some radically fundamental change on world economy, society and governance.

Do t get me wrong, this could be the best idea since organically grown, co2 negative sliced bread on sustainable farming land, but we are still allowed to ask details about it and discuss possible issues.

Step 2 state yourself governments will not do it

Stepv3 poster interested in your ideas and asks for more details and clarifications

Step 4 instead of any engagement, direct become defensive and blame everyone else?

So can you tell us more about your ideas? How it could possible come about and what the negative impacts there will be (as there will be some) and how we seamlessly transfer over to all the benifits.

What is it that you're unclear on? There are no lack of plans for how to tranistion economies into being zero emissions and carbon neutral. What I've posted describes the economic polices needed to enact this at a scale large enough to have a fighting chance of achieving this by 2030, if we're serious about it.

If you want to talk about the macroeconomic problems, the policies needed to enact all of this at the right scale - I'm your man.

If you want to divert what I'm discussing into debating over the thousands of different technical plans for eliminating carbon emissions: There are endless plans for this, this area is not the problem - the area of politics, particularly economic policy is the problem.

I'm trying to elevate the discussion beyond debating the minutiae of technical solutions to climate change - all posters should be able to agree, that we generally have a pretty good and wide/diverse idea of the range of technical work that needs to be done, to bring down carbon emissions - the problem I would like people to debate, what my posts are focusing on: Since we know what to do, lets solve the problem of getting it enacted at a scale big enough to arrest climate change.

That is the no.1 problem. My posts explain the big picture, of how to enact the technical-solutions/details, at a scale that is big enough to actually seriously tackle the problem.

Thelonious Monk

KyussB wrote: »

What is it that you're unclear on? There are no lack of plans for how to tranistion economies into being zero emissions and carbon neutral. What I've posted describes the economic polices needed to enact this at a scale large enough to have a fighting chance of achieving this by 2030, if we're serious about it.

If you want to talk about the macroeconomic problems, the policies needed to enact all of this at the right scale - I'm your man.

If you want to divert what I'm discussing into debating over the thousands of different technical plans for eliminating carbon emissions: There are endless plans for this, this area is not the problem - the area of politics, particularly economic policy is the problem.

I'm trying to elevate the discussion beyond debating the minutiae of technical solutions to climate change - all posters should be able to agree, that we generally have a pretty good and wide/diverse idea of the range of technical work that needs to be done, to bring down carbon emissions - the problem I would like people to debate, what my posts are focusing on: Since we know what to do, lets solve the problem of getting it enacted at a scale big enough to arrest climate change.

That is the no.1 problem. My posts explain the big picture, of how to enact the technical-solutions/details, at a scale that is big enough to actually seriously tackle the problem.

If you look a page or two back a response to my post said that they don't want to do anything about it or change anything because they're only here for 70/80 years and they don't care. All the people arguing against you here thanked it.
That's it in a nutshell. They're not willing to change or do anything because they don't care about the future or the planet.
I would imagine some of these guys have kids (I don't), so it actually beggars belief that they don't care.
And the fact they don't care about it or want to do anything makes it even more weird that Greta annoys these grown men so much.

[Deleted User]

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If you look a page or two back a response to my post said that they don't want to do anything about it or change anything because they're only here for 70/80 years and they don't care. All the people arguing against you here thanked it.
That's it in a nutshell. They're not willing to change or do anything because they don't care about the future or the planet.
I would imagine some of these guys have kids (I don't), so it actually beggars belief that they don't care.
And the fact they don't care about it or want to do anything makes it even more weird that Greta annoys these grown men so much.

i think that if anyone who disagreed with you and your tired projection of their position wanted to explain themselves theyd do so

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

i think that if anyone who disagreed with you and your tired projection of their position wanted to explain themselves theyd do so

welcome to discussion forums