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

Well we are all in it together im afraid

SafeSurfer wrote: »

More birds are killed annually by wind turbines than oil spills but I guess they are just pawns in the green revolution!

Maybe they are, or maybe you're just repeating something somebody made up that has no basis in reality.

Studies that have been done have shown wind farms cause about 5% as many bird deaths per kilowatt generated as fossil fuels do;

https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i6p2241-2248.html

quokula wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

More birds are killed annually by wind turbines than oil spills but I guess they are just pawns in the green revolution!

Maybe they are, or maybe you're just repeating something somebody made up that has no basis in reality.

Studies that have been done have shown wind farms cause about 5% as many bird deaths per kilowatt generated as fossil fuels do;

https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i6p2241-2248.html

Straight off the figures in that “article” are BS. Bird mortality from wind turbines in the US alone is estimated at between 140,000 and 340,000 per annum.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Straight off the figures in that “article” are BS. Bird mortality from wind turbines in the US alone is estimated at between 140,000 and 340,000 per annum.

Yeah numbers plucked out of the air are definitely more likely to be accurate than a published study.

Also, the level of hypocrisy to be using the argument "won't somebody think of the birds" while railing against any moves to lessen our environmental impact is astounding.

quokula wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Straight off the figures in that “article” are BS. Bird mortality from wind turbines in the US alone is estimated at between 140,000 and 340,000 per annum.

Yeah numbers plucked out of the air are definitely more likely to be accurate than a published study.

Have you looked at the “article” quoted? It’s scientific toilet paper. It quotes a figure of 7000 bird deaths caused by wind turbines annually while the lowest figure from meta analysis of studies puts the figure at 20 times that.

Cats kill more birds annually than energy production so maybe we should tax cats.

Ulysses Gaze

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well we are all in it together im afraid

Yet you consistently blame "The West" for being the cause of the problem.

And that WE need to change our ways.

There are 400 million Chinese middle class consumers.

That is larger than the entire population of the United States.

There could be as many as 300 million Indian middle class consumers which is almost the size of the entire population of the US.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Yet you consistently blame "The West" for being the cause of the problem.

And that WE need to change our ways.

There are 400 million Chinese middle class consumers.

That is larger than the entire population of the United States.

There could be as many as 300 million Indian middle class consumers which is almost the size of the entire population of the US.

22% of exports from China go to the USA for example. Who's fuelling the Chinese economy? I'm blaming the West yes, and China. People going on about Africans having babies are ridiculous, they basically have no footprint compared to rich people like us. Per capita China aren't even bad polluters compared to rich countries.

weldoninhio wrote: »

But Greta says we’ve only 11/12 years. She’s said she wants us to panic.

None of the above will matter if catastrophic climate change is happening and isn’t man made, right?? You’ll just be taxing people out of existence and making their remaining years on earth miserable. Why would you do that?? Are you a sadist??

You don't understand how government finances work. The macroeconomics of GND style policies provide plentiful work and earnings for everyone, without requiring a massive tax burden on people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HDu1lvTblI

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

*load-of-****/snip*...seize on the green new deal as stimulus using magic money theory (MMT). Only countries that avoid this will recover, socialist systems will remain locked in permanent depression as we see from the latest example in Venezuela.

Kind of funny to see my opponents in debate (who I don't recall debating with on previous accounts) bring up Modern Monetary Theory before I do, and in a shrieking fashion.

Nice to see it's hit mainstream and has sprung The Fear into conservatives. To think it was effectively banned from discussion on the political/economic parts of Boards (or with a chilling effect so sub-zero as to achieve the same), for most of the decade...

Pa ElGrande

Climate alarmists have intentionally targeted children - to push their political objectives. Instead of holding an honest debate with adults, they have chosen to terrorize young people with their lies and propaganda. They are destroying science while simultaneously destroying the mental health of children.

James Brown

SafeSurfer wrote: »

More birds are killed annually by wind turbines than oil spills but I guess they are just pawns in the green revolution!

It's a comment on oil spills and pipeline leaks. It ruins water and land.
What is the goal of this nefarious scheme for greenery? More tax? Do you think governments need create climate change for that and do you think most everybody is in on it?
Whereas the oil barons and multinationals are only looking out for the lowly worker?

gozunda wrote: »

Fair enough. I generally have a good chuckle whenever I hear people going on about
existential crises tbh. Maybe it's the new speak?

Plenty of solutions to existing problems can and are being taken without having to resort to busted Soviet era style economics or enforced gulag style lifestyles. So no not believing in the "New Green Deal'" does not stop realistic solutions being acted upon. Government budgets are rarely balanced because all countries have constant and increasing demand for public and social services - which in Ireland form the majority of our budgetary spending.

'Wood' is not carbon neutral 'you fool'(sic). The fact is a significant amount of carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere when the tree is destroyed and destroying a forest will release a lot of carbon dioxide in a short period of time and yes it takes a helluva long time to grow new trees.

Swap all construction to timber and watch the worlds mature forests being decimated and as a result even less Co2 uptake.

Wood is also only efficient at carbon uptake at certain points of its life cycle. When millions of trees are felled to make lumber - the wood quickly becomes a net emitter of carbon. This effect is especially relevant where any young trees planted can only take up a proportion of the carbon released.

You see the funny thing is they teach none of this in the various green fringe propaganda schools ...

Heres some interesting reading on some of the other complexities of trees and Co2 exchange. Magic 'genetically engineered' trees are neither here nor there at this point in time.

https://medium.com/the-philipendium/trees-and-carbon-dioxide-what-is-the-truth-c7f8c9d12602

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00122-z

You use forestry for building material, you don't burn it. Timber sequesters carbon.

Transport timber using EV's with renewably sourced power, and it stays carbon negative.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Have you looked at the “article” quoted? It’s scientific toilet paper. It quotes a figure of 7000 bird deaths caused by wind turbines annually while the lowest figure from meta analysis of studies puts the figure at 20 times that.

You seem to be incapable of comprehending the difference in "per kilowatt" and "absolute number" - thousands of birds are killed, but an order of magnitude more are saved by the replacement of other forms of energy that kill more birds.

There are many studies in many different countries supporting this. There is no actual real properly conducted scientific study that backs up the lies you're trying to spread.

quokula wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Have you looked at the “article” quoted? It’s scientific toilet paper. It quotes a figure of 7000 bird deaths caused by wind turbines annually while the lowest figure from meta analysis of studies puts the figure at 20 times that.

You seem to be incapable of comprehending the difference in "per kilowatt" and "absolute number" - thousands of birds are killed, but an order of magnitude more are saved by the replacement of other forms of energy that kill more birds.

There are many studies in many different countries supporting this. There is no actual real properly conducted scientific study that backs up the lies you're trying to spread.

The lies I am trying to spread? I said wind turbines kill more birds than oil spills and I stand over that.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/windmills-and-solar-plans-kill-far-birds-than-oil-spills/

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The lies I am trying to spread? I said wind turbines kill more birds than oil spills and I stand over that.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/windmills-and-solar-plans-kill-far-birds-than-oil-spills/

Try looking at some of the other nonsense articles that crank has come out with before you start trying to pretend they're in some way as reliable source as the many scientific studies that state wind turbines save the lives of more birds than they cost.

https://www.investors.com/author/jacksonk/ - it's a checklist of the loony right, with its obsession with denying climate reality, obsession with Hilary's emails, obsession with conspiracy theories.

Again, other forms of energy generation actually kill way more birds, and wind turbines are a vanishingly tiny percentage of human-caused bird deaths: https://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-death-and-wind-turbines-a-look-at-the-evidence

quokula wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The lies I am trying to spread? I said wind turbines kill more birds than oil spills and I stand over that.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/windmills-and-solar-plans-kill-far-birds-than-oil-spills/

Try looking at some of the other nonsense articles that crank has come out with before you start trying to pretend they're in some way as reliable source as the many scientific studies that state wind turbines save the lives of more birds than they cost.

https://www.investors.com/author/jacksonk/ - it's a checklist of the loony right, with its obsession with denying climate reality, obsession with Hilary's emails, obsession with conspiracy theories.

Again, other forms of energy generation actually kill way more birds, and wind turbines are a vanishingly tiny percentage of human-caused bird deaths: https://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-death-and-wind-turbines-a-look-at-the-evidence

So my reference is biased but your reference in “carbonbrief” is impartial?

You can broaden the effects of fossil fuels on bird mortality to include those killed by diesel and petrol powered cars all you want. However my point stands. More birds are killed by wind turbines than oil spills.

http://jasonendfield.weebly.com/home/isle-of-man-sea-bird-populations-plummet-as-wind-farms-overwhelm-the-irish-sea#

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.0829

Greenwash would have us believe we can forge a brave new green future where we have little or no impact on our environment. The fact remains however that wind turbines are deadly to birds.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You use forestry for building material, you don't burn it. Timber sequesters carbon.Transport timber using EV's with renewably sourced power, and it stays carbon negative.

You don't seem to know very much about commercial forestry, harvesting, transport or kiln drying in the manufacture of building grade and other timber and I don't mean that in a critical sense tbh.

Either we plant trees to sequester carbon and leave then there or we cut them down and significant amounts of the carbon gets released back into the atmosphere. How does this happen? It's fairly simple tbh. Trees absorb CO2 to make tissue and turn the gas into root and branch, leaf and bark, trunk and fruit / seed. When trees are felled - all the branches and leaves and bark and roots are all stripped away and either burnt or start to decay releasing huge amounts of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Transport and timber processing including kiln drying (using further energy) accelerates this process even further. The thing is - it's not even just the trees being cut - the removal of the forest cover during harvesting operations disturbs the surrounding soil and further contributes to the realease of even more carbon and from other ground vegetation. New trees have to be replanted - with more soil and ground cover disturbances. But the main problem is that it takes years for those trees to build up large stores of carbon which was released by the trees which were harvested. And so on it goes.

The whole process of timber processing is neither carbon carbon neutral nor carbon 'negative'. The other big hole in this - is that transport including lorries are practically exclusively fossil fuel based due to the huge amounts of enegy required for haulage and the distances covered. Now there are some limited opportunities for transport by train or by floating down large waterways - but both of those are extremely restricted by reason of logistical issues.

So in a zero carbon world large scale house building is fuked. It simply won't happen. I suppose we could live in wattle and daub huts like people in Ireland did in early times or even mud walled cabins common up to the last century. We're certainly not going to be living in what we accept as modern housing for sure. Cant wait tbh...

weldoninhio

KyussB wrote: »

You don't understand how government finances work. The macroeconomics of GND style policies provide plentiful work and earnings for everyone, without requiring a massive tax burden on people.

But if we figure out climate change isn’t man made, and we only have 10/11 years according to St Greta, would we have to be taxed to the hilt in the short term to get the GND fantasy up and not running??

Blueshoe

99problems1 wrote: »

How about we all give up having more than one kid?

Then we can all enjoy life as much as we can without more taxes burdening us on this short time on the planet.

We are barely at replacement rate in Ireland. Parts of Europe are below.

Other parts of the world though. They pop them out for sport .

Blueshoe wrote: »

We are barely at replacement rate in Ireland. Parts of Europe are below.

Other parts of the world though. They pop them out for sport .

Yes but they're not the ones destroying and consuming everything, rich people are, the ones having less kids!

Blueshoe

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes but they're not the ones destroying and consuming everything, rich people are, the ones having less kids!

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics

Are you sure? Look at the graph a little down the page

Looks like Europe is doing it's bit.
The Americans, Chinese, Indians and Australians on the other hand.
There is nothing we can do about that. Not even a tax on us will make them clean up their act. Surprising I know

gozunda

Looks like in greta's pre apocalyptic world we will all have to give up bread if her wishes are to be met ...

Drop Your Toast! Bread Is Not Healthy for the Environment

https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/36076/20170302/drop-your-toast-bread-is-not-healthy-for-the-environment.htm

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/03/whats-the-environmental-impact-of-your-toast/

Pa ElGrande

The totalitarian socialists who use climate change hysteria to try and scare the population into acquiescing to totalitarian socialism (in other words the "Green New Deal") are deeply concerned about the contributions of cow farts to the greenhouse effect and global warming. That’s why various assorted NGOs like An Taisce are waging a war on beef. Lo and behold, a Swedish "behavioural scientist" has apparently discovered the answer to their dilemma: cannibalism i.e. replacing beef with cooked-up “meat” from dead bodies.

Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change

Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.

The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding “food of the future”.

Söderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food” where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

According to his research, the main problem with the idea is the widespread taboo of eating human flesh and said that conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes at large to take up the practice of cannibalism.

source

How many NGOs are involved in this? Climate action – Teacher resource

https://greenschoolsireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Green-Schools-Climate-Action-Teacher-Resource.pdf

Why are people talking about socialism like it's a bad thing?

Blueshoe

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why are people talking about socialism like it's a bad thing?

I googled it while having a poo. Socialism is poo

Socialism fails because it suffers from four fundamental design defects.

First, socialism eradicates private property and markets and thus eliminates rational calculation.
Second, socialism allows soft budgets, so there is no mechanism in place to discard inefficient production methods.
Third, abolishing private property and replacing it by the state distorts the incentives.
Four, the socialist system with its absence of private property and of free markets inhibits the economic coordination of the system of division of labor and capital.
The Importance of Market Prices
Socialism cannot bring prosperity because it destroys the market functions of private property. Under socialism, private ownership of the means of production no longer exists, and thus there are no market prices for capital goods available. Institutionally, socialism consists in abolishing the market economy and replacing it with a planned economy. By doing away with private property of the means of production, one wipes-out market information and valuation. Even if the socialist administration puts price tags on the consumer goods, and the people may own consumer goods, there is no economic orientation about the relative scarcity of capital goods.

Many supporters of socialism suppose that business management is nothing more than a kind of registration or simple bookkeeping. Vladimir Lenin believed that the knowledge of reading and writing, and some expertise in the use of the basic arithmetic operations and some training in accounting, would be enough for the conduct of business operations. The socialists promote engineering and science, but they believe that there is no need for the entrepreneur. The regime may spend heavily on education but when there is no entrepreneurial economy, the people will stay poor, nevertheless.

The Role of Scarcity
The socialists ignore scarcity. They assume that a plan could stipulate the allocation of goods and services according to needs and wants. Yet the planners must answer how such a plan should find its standards of valuation. Without prices and markets, there is no orientation about which factors of production are more and which are less valuable. The socialist planners have no knowledge of the costs of the production process. Without markets, the prevailing value structure remains unknown.

Supply in relation to want makes goods valuable. In a market economy, the relative prices show the degrees of scarcity. By observing the prices, the market participants receive the information that guides them to align their economic decisions to the market signals. The price system informs about relative scarcities. There is no need for a comprehensive system of detailed information about the origin and nature of the scarcity beyond the prices to make a rational decision. The price system reduces complexity for the individual decision maker to the single number of the price. In a market economy, the economic participants need only partial knowledge to act rationally. In capitalism, the motivation to gain profits and to avoid costs work as an incentive to behave rationally. In a market economy, the prices provide information and incentives simultaneously for the seller and the buyer.

All production faces the problem of an almost unlimited number of ways how to produce a good. One can manufacture a commodity with very different raw materials, technologies, and combinations of the production factors and in an endless variety of designs.

Setting Priorities
Along with the technological feasibility of a project, one must calculate its profitability. Without costs in relation to sales, a technical evaluation makes no sense. That a project is technically viable does not mean that its realization is also worthwhile. What appears efficient from a technical point of view need not be so in terms of economic expediency. With costs left out of the consideration, socialist production is blind to the risk of producing goods that cost more than they are worth. In a socialist economy, even a benevolent dictator could not provide the right mix of goods in terms of price and quality

Socialists suppose that to implant their rule on the economy all that is necessary is to socialize the private companies, replace the management, and install worker councils, and the new economic order would flourish. The early socialists expected that abundance would follow not least because now the workers would get what before went into the hands of the capitalists as profits. Yet the socialists ignored that the socialization of the means of production was just the beginning. They failed miserably in running the economy.

The error of socialist economic planning is to assume that business management could also continue as before after socialist operators take over the capitalist management. While the socialist regime can train administrators and engineers and put the party members in the position of directors, these new leaders cannot decide according to relative scarcities because there is no longer a private property-based entrepreneurial price system available.

The reality of socialism is the command and obedience. Without orientation from markets and prices, brute force rules the allocation of the goods. The claim to combine socialism and democracy is as much a fraud as the assertion that socialism would bring prosperity. Socialism’s true face is totalitarian despotism .

It is no wonder that even a degenerate capitalism produces more prosperity than the best socialism. Therefore, the task ahead cannot be to remove capitalism in favor of socialism but to make capitalism better. In other words: make it more capitalist.

gozunda

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The totalitarian socialists who use climate change hysteria to try and scare the population into acquiescing to totalitarian socialism (in other words the "Green New Deal") are deeply concerned about the contributions of cow farts to the greenhouse effect and global warming. That’s why various assorted NGOs like An Taisce are waging a war on beef. Lo and behold, a Swedish "behavioural scientist" has apparently discovered the answer to their dilemma: cannibalism i.e. replacing beef with cooked-up “meat” from dead bodies.

Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change...

Reminds me of this for some strange reason

The year is 2022 ...

gozunda wrote: »

You don't seem to know very much about commercial forestry, harvesting, transport or kiln drying in the manufacture of building grade and other timber and I don't mean that in a critical sense tbh.

Either we plant trees to sequester carbon and leave then there or we cut them down and significant amounts of the carbon gets released back into the atmosphere. How does this happen? It's fairly simple tbh. Trees absorb CO2 to make tissue and turn the gas into root and branch, leaf and bark, trunk and fruit / seed. When trees are felled - all the branches and leaves and bark and roots are all stripped away and either burnt or start to decay releasing huge amounts of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Transport and timber processing including kiln drying (using further energy) accelerates this process even further. The thing is - it's not even just the trees being cut - the removal of the forest cover during harvesting operations disturbs the surrounding soil and further contributes to the realease of even more carbon and from other ground vegetation. New trees have to be replanted - with more soil and ground cover disturbances. But the main problem is that it takes years for those trees to build up large stores of carbon which was released by the trees which were harvested. And so on it goes.

The whole process of timber processing is neither carbon carbon neutral nor carbon 'negative'. The other big hole in this - is that transport including lorries are practically exclusively fossil fuel based due to the huge amounts of enegy required for haulage and the distances covered. Now there are some limited opportunities for transport by train or by floating down large waterways - but both of those are extremely restricted by reason of logistical issues.

So in a zero carbon world large scale house building is fuked. It simply won't happen. I suppose we could live in wattle and daub huts like people in Ireland did in early times or even mud walled cabins common up to the last century. We're certainly not going to be living in what we accept as modern housing for sure. Cant wait tbh...

The thing that most exposes you as regurgitating a script here, is that you ignore how my fairly succinct post says to use EV transportation powered by renewable sources - in order to shit out a scenario that reverts back to fossil fuel based transport, in order to re-inflate the perception of its carbon cost.

You can air-dry wood, with no added carbon release/cost, and if in a rush you can also renewably power kiln-dryed wood - zero carbon cost.

Soil disturbance and tree offcuts...that amounts to fuck all carbon, and overall still amounts to likely 90+% of the carbon sequestered from the atmosphere, staying sequestered.

It's immensely carbon-negative, done right.