nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Blueshoe

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We would need some kind of international agreement yes. Well that's the best suggestion ive got apart from trying to end reliance on fossil fuels and cleaner energy etc.

Yes. Definitely an international agreement. But they don't tend to always work. As we know. Things need to get much worse before any real effort is made. I look forward to things getting worse

Kimsang

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

it's more realistic for now to say hey let's have less cattle in Ireland, or anywhere in the world, and rewild some of the land, give it back to nature. If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature.
We could still have beef farmers in Ireland, just not every Tom, Dick and Harry outside any urban population having some kind of a herd.
But we would have to cut down on meat, and the amount of meat we export, and that just seems unpalatable to most people.

I don't disagree with the sentiment here, but as another poster mentioned, it really would need drastic change to have any sort of impact and drastic change would lead to loss of life.

I still see future technology as being our only way out of this mess, a cheap co2 scrubber or new battery , fusion power as others mentioned(although we can create a 'sun' the problem is making a container to hold it).

Jimmy Garlic

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't disagree with the sentiment here, but as another poster mentioned, it really would need drastic change to have any sort of impact and drastic change would lead to loss of life.

I still see future technology as being our only way out of this mess, a cheap co2 scrubber or new battery , fusion power as others mentioned(although we can create a 'sun' the problem is making a container to hold it).

Molton salt reactors.. proven to be a highly stable way to harness nuclear power. The ecohippy windmill tilters would nimby any such proposal and development into oblivion however.

is_that_so

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't disagree with the sentiment here, but as another poster mentioned, it really would need drastic change to have any sort of impact and drastic change would lead to loss of life.

I still see future technology as being our only way out of this mess, a cheap co2 scrubber or new battery , fusion power as others mentioned(although we can create a 'sun' the problem is making a container to hold it).

A lot of the issues have been addressed already in fusion, including the "container", but not the longevity of a reaction. Think 70s is the longest to date.

Kimsang

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Molton salt reactors.. proven to be a highly stable way to harness nuclear power. The ecohippy windmill tilters would nimby any such proposal and development into oblivion however.

Imagine how cheap nuclear would be if it didn't need such tight security(for obvious reasons).

I really don't get the lefts opposition to nuclear. Its so much cleaner for the environment.

Thelonious Monk

Kimsang wrote: »

Imagine how cheap nuclear would be if it didn't need such tight security(for obvious reasons).

I really don't get the lefts opposition to nuclear. Its so much cleaner for the environment.

Are the left opposed to it? I think Ireland in general is anti nuclear, would all Irish parties be opposed? Also does our population warrant having a station? I thought I read somewhere it wouldn't suit Ireland even if we wanted to build one.

recedite

One nuclear station, plus decentralised wind and solar farms, plus feed in tariffs for home microgeneration, plus Spirit of Ireland built by the state to store off peak power, and the job is mostly done.
A few small gas turbine generating stations near cities just to top up.

is_that_so

recedite wrote: »

One nuclear station, plus decentralised wind and solar farms, plus feed in tariffs for home microgeneration, plus Spirit of Ireland built by the state to store off peak power, and the job is mostly done.
A few small gas turbine generating stations near cities just to top up.

Think Spirit of Ireland is toast. Bit of madcap idea anyway.

Kimsang

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Are the left opposed to it? I think Ireland in general is anti nuclear, would all Irish parties be opposed? Also does our population warrant having a station? I thought I read somewhere it wouldn't suit Ireland even if we wanted to build one.

Certainly the left as a homogenous group are not opposed to it, but the only opposition I see to it comes from people on the left, maybe I'm wrong.

Thelonious Monk

Kimsang wrote: »

Certainly the left as a homogenous group are not opposed to it, but the only opposition I see to it comes from people on the left, maybe I'm wrong.

I think there were lots of protests about it in Ireland in the 70s but it was more God bothering types than hippies

Thelonious Monk

No wait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnsore_Point

Christy Moore etc.
Funny how they've no problem with the burning of our peatlands though which seems to be far more destructive.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tbh anyone suggesting people not have kids for the sake of the climate should be immediately disregarded IMO..

bizarre statement

the single biggest thing a person can do to actually effect change, and results are exponential.

what possible issue could you raise with the suggestion?

IMO anyone who turns their face from this needs to ask themselves whether they care about the environment at all, or whether they have an unhealthy vested interest in humanity

all well and good to care about humanity but one could never convincingly argue that there wasnt ~too much~ of it

a planet of two billion, with appropriate advances in technology. if one really believed in man-made climate change, whats the possible objection?

Thelonious Monk

With all the infrastructure we have now, how could you decrease the population dramatically without things just exploding from not being looked after and power plants blowing up etc. I wonder how you could rewind development.

Say my name

Anyone suggest get rid of the horse racing industry yet?
Such a waste horses bred for racing and the gambling industry, taking up so much land that could be used for food production. Not to mention all that fossil fuel burned by horses travelling around the country and around the world. And then you have the same emissions as cattle only out their back end. So yea ban the thoroughbred.

Thelonious Monk

I saw something earlier about making domestic pet food from insects. There are billions of cats and dogs being fed meats and there are luxury lines of meats etc which just seems ridiculous.

Kimsang

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

With all the infrastructure we have now, how could you decrease the population dramatically without things just exploding from not being looked after and power plants blowing up etc. I wonder how you could rewind development.

What if we are on the cusp of a technological advancement that will solve all our problems?

Our streets were quite literally filled with horse manure before cars, it was building up everywhere and it looked like our society could no longer function. Along came technology(cars) and solved our environmental disaster.

"In 1900, [....]a staggering total of over 50,000 horses transporting people around the city(London) each day.[...]The main concern was the large amount of manure left behind on the streets. On average a horse will produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day, so you can imagine the sheer scale of the problem.[...]Each horse also produced around 2 pints of urine per day[...]But this wasn’t just a British crisis: New York had a population of 100,000 horses producing around 2.5m pounds of manure a day.."

This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

StinkyMunkey

As with everything in life, it always has to slap someone hard in the face before they will believe it. Hundreds of years from now, kids will be taught about the eejits who denied climate change was man made.

ForestFire

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

With all the infrastructure we have now, how could you decrease the population dramatically without things just exploding from not being looked after and power plants blowing up etc. I wonder how you could rewind development.

I don't think it will be that sudden a change, where nobody turns up at work at the local power station in the morning

But a two child policy would at least halt the population increase and reduce it over time. But I cannot see how it's possible to get a worldwide agreement to implement this or anything like it from governments, never mind the citizens and their SW (CASH;)) rights, and again the impacts on the economy and an aging population.

Then say for example Russia does not sign up, and they start to develop faster that the rest of us, and there population grows and they see all that nice low populated land to the west, in decline and just begging for "help".

Kimsang

ForestFire wrote: »

But a two child policy would at least halt the population increase and reduce it over time. But I cannot see how it's possible to get a worldwide agreement to implement this or anything like it from governments, never mind the citizens

Unintended consequences of the one child policy in China:

As sons were generally preferred over daughters, the overall sex ratio in China became skewed toward males. In 2016 there were 33.59 million more men than women.(There's usually more women in a society than men, since women live longer so this number underestimates the actual effects)
Because of the preference for sons, there was a rise in the number of abortions of female fetuses.
The number of female babies killed, abandoned, or placed in orphanages increased as a result of the policy.
In families that already had one child, the births of additional children—in violation of the one-child policy—were often undocumented, leading to many problems later on for those children as they struggled to receive an education or find work.

[Deleted User]

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

With all the infrastructure we have now, how could you decrease the population dramatically without things just exploding from not being looked after and power plants blowing up etc. I wonder how you could rewind development.

its ok ill just pass it to greta on a card to read it out

at that stage if you criticise the idea itll be sexist.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Nope - not stated 'there is no work'

"Digging holes" is not literal - it was simply used as a figurative example to help you understand the question. So now that is clear - you can stop avoiding the issue and now provide an answer as to exactly what this "massive mobilization of labour is going to be doing.

Do try and keep it focused if possible and no going off on bizarre tangents.

Btw to digress off your manifesto - Greta et al appears to be little more than a dog and pony show but thats already been detailed...

If you're not stating that there's no useful work to be done combatting carbon emissions - why are you asking me for examples for what forms that work could take? Take your pick of the numerous examples of such possible work in the last page or two...

If the problem I'm focusing on is the big picture - mobilizing labour and resources at a large enough scale, to tackle reducing carbon emissions quickly (by the end of the next decade) - why would I want to get into a debate explaining all of the smaller-scale work that is required?

That would just mean I end up debating small-scale stuff with people - not the big picture macroeconomic issues. If people disagree that there is an abundance of such work to do, then say so.

Blueshoe

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As with everything in life, it always has to slap someone hard in the face before they will believe it. Hundreds of years from now, kids will be taught about the eejits who denied climate change was man made.

Nah

weldoninhio

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As with everything in life, it always has to slap someone hard in the face before they will believe it. Hundreds of years from now, kids will be taught about the eejits who denied climate change was man made.

But we’ll be fcuked in eleven years though

Pa ElGrande

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As with everything in life, it always has to slap someone hard in the face before they will believe it. Hundreds of years from now, kids will be taught about the eejits who denied climate change was man made.

No. They will learn that the influence of humans on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.

"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."

Richard Lindzen

"The public discourse on global warming has little in common with the standards of scientific discourse. Rather, it is part of political discourse where comments are made to secure the political base and frighten the opposition rather than to illuminate issues. In political discourse, information is to be 'spun' to reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and to discourage opposition."

Richard Lindzen

Stevieluvsye

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As with everything in life, it always has to slap someone hard in the face before they will believe it. Hundreds of years from now, kids will be taught about the eejits who denied climate change was man made.

I've said it before and i'll say it again i've said it before

Climate change has been happening since the creation of the planet. It is always evolving

gozunda

recedite wrote: »

One nuclear station, plus decentralised wind and solar farms, plus feed in tariffs for home microgeneration, plus Spirit of Ireland built by the state to store off peak power, and the job is mostly done.
A few small gas turbine generating stations near cities just to top up.

Why decentralised wind and solar recedite? There are huge transmission loses with moving generated electricity over long distances. Imo much better utilise vast areas of urban and peri-urban roof space - whether industrial and otherwise and also unused brownfield sites and sterlised land. One of the the best locations for wind generation units I've seen was along motorways adjacent to centres of population providing for ease of access, low transmission loses and good wind speeds

Pa ElGrande

The source of Europes Mild Climate
Richard Seager

Thermohaline circulation—often dubbed “the ocean conveyor belt”—carries warm surface waters (pink) from the tropics to the North Atlantic, with the return flow at depth (purple). But contrary to many accounts (summarized by diagrams such as this), this heat conveyor plays only a minor role in keeping European countries warm during winter months.

source

The waviness in the flow of the mid-latitude westerlies that is responsible for keeping European winters mild results from a fundamental principle of physics: the conservation of angular momentum. Because the top of the troposphere acts as something of a lid, air flowing from the Pacific over the Rocky Mountains must compress vertically and, as a consequence, expand horizontally. Conservation of angular momentum demands that a package of air (depicted as white cylinder) undergoing such a horizontal expansion must develop a component of clockwise spin to reduce the predominantly counter clockwise spin it has by virtue of its location in the Northern Hemisphere.

(The length of the red arrows indicates relative amount of spin, which is derived from both local air movements and the revolution of the planet.) The new component of clockwise spin manifests itself as a gentle swerve to the south in what is predominantly west-to-east flow.

When this package of air then moves over the eastern side of the continent and on over the Atlantic, it does the opposite, expanding vertically and contracting horizontally, which allows it to veer back toward the north. The wavelike pattern sends air heated over the Atlantic to the northeast, where it warms Europe.

source

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

If you're not stating that there's no useful work to be done combatting carbon emissions - why are you asking me for examples for what forms that work could take? Take your pick of the numerous examples of such possible work in the last page or two.If the problem I'm focusing on is the big picture - mobilizing labour and resources at a large enough scale, to tackle reducing carbon emissions quickly (by the end of the next decade) - why would I want to get into a debate explaining all of the smaller-scale work that is required?That would just mean I end up debating small-scale stuff with people - not the big picture macroeconomic issues. If people disagree that there is an abundance of such work to do, then say so.

I really dont care if you don't want to end up debating small-scale stuff with people" heaven forbid! - that is NOT the question.

You are being asked one simple question.

Exactly what will the "massive mobilization of labour' going to be doing according to your manifesto? And no debate required - just a list of real examples thanks.

Keep it straightforward so we will learn exactly what the plan is ...

Btw there are no examples of work laid out for "massive mobilization of labour" as far as I can see. So just detail it for the rest of us that obviously don't have your incredible foresight. Thanks.

gozunda

weldoninhio wrote: »

But we’ll be fcuked in eleven years though

Nope. You're wrong.

It will be 10 years 4 months 4 days and 15 hours according to gretas dooms day clock ....

Stevieluvsye

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. You're wrong.

It will be 10 years 4 months 4 days and 15 hours according to gretas dooms day clock ....

Still going at it Gozunda?

Batting the Greta lovers off one by one