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

Micky 32 wrote: »

I don't vote for them! The problem is the idiots in this country are voting for them.

Ok that's good - push the political parties you do vote for, to support a proper EU-wide Green New Deal, so - one involving massive technological R&D for renewable power generation and infrastructure, a Job Guarantee, necessarily a carbon tax (but with rapid replacement of power generation with renewables), and a massive war mobilziation style effort to retrofit the economy for zero emissions by 2030 (retrofitting existing structures for energy efficiency, massive massive expansion of public transport to replace cars, massive expansion of renewable power generation and R&D, complete overhaul of e.g. electricity infrastructure to support this and support e.g. proper energy storage and selling back to grid at a good price etc.).

3...2...1...before other posters in the thread decry this as 'Communism', though...(despite it having zero relation)

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Well the rest of your post is pure bollokx, so let's stick with this.

I stated I heard that said and have indeed seen it in person, you disputed (for some reason) and are now defining it as the time period to a tipping point to... what? Are you saying that if we don't have this sorted in 12 years (by 2031), there's no point in doing anything? What happens in 2032 onwards?

We've already reached a tipping point where we can not avoid damage from climate change - no matter how badly we continue to worsen climate change, there is always a point in stopping and reversing that - of course.

The reason we need to immediately arrest our contribution to climate change, is that there is a great risk of us triggering further natural tipping points that will accelerate climate change even faster than our own contribution.

Things like melting the ice sheets, melting permafrost which releases enormous amounts of methane, disrupting the balance of carbon absorbed by the oceans etc. - there are a bunch of different positive feedback loops, which can end up significantly contributing to climate change in addition to our own changes - if we allow things to be pushed much further.

The general consequences for failing to arrest these things, in the long term, are issues like water shortages for many parts of the world, desertification and removal of useful cropland - which will have knock on effects on food production for the world, obviously the availability of water - and with that comes a lot of political destabilization and likely wars over resources in areas of the world affected by all of this.

In general, there's a very significant risk that world agricultural production simply won't be able to keep up adequate food production as climate change worsens - we're also likely going to have a lot more people on the planet than today as well - so, work out the consequences of those two things put together...

Micky 32 wrote: »

Yeah but most people won't be able to afford a new electric car in the next 10 years. So they'll have no choice to pay the upcoming fuel costs. Secondly you'll hardly see these big electric trucks on the roads delivery food to shops, trucks use fuel at approx 8 mpg . This country isn't ready for any of this, the cost of living is going to shoot up,

I think the biggest challenge to electrical vehicle adoption is the national grid and infrastructure. We'd need a lot more power on tap for 1 million (?) cars per day sucking down the juice. And Johnny isn't going to hang an extension cord out his window down to the street overnight to power the Yaris.

KyussB wrote: »

Don't vote FG or FF then - get them out of power and replace them with a party willing to advocate a proper Green New Deal - which actually promotes the rapid transition to renewables.

I don't vote for them! The problem is the idiots in this country are voting for them.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Yeah but most people won't be able to afford a new electric car in the next 10 years. So they'll have no choice to pay the upcoming fuel costs. Secondly you'll hardly see these big electric trucks on the roads delivery food to shops, trucks use fuel at approx 8 mpg . This country isn't ready for any of this, the cost of living is going to shoot up,

Don't vote FG or FF then - get them out of power and replace them with a party willing to advocate a proper Green New Deal - which actually promotes the rapid transition to renewables.

KyussB wrote: »

You can only gain a technicality on this - by deliberately choosing to take a statement you know is intentionally hyperbolic/exaggerated, as being literal - and by ignoring the quoted persons other stated views, that it is really about tipping points and not literal 'end of the world' deadlines.

Well the rest of your post is pure bollokx, so let's stick with this.

I stated I heard that said and have indeed seen it in person, you disputed (for some reason) and are now defining it as the time period to a tipping point to... what? Are you saying that if we don't have this sorted in 12 years (by 2031), there's no point in doing anything? What happens in 2032 onwards?

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Well for instance the government get the lion's share of the price of petrol. If we're moving away from that, it's gotta be made up for elsewhere. So it could seem like "crippling" but they're just redistributing the taxes. It'll deffo be on the upward curve though

Yeah but most people won't be able to afford a new electric car in the next 10 years. So they'll have no choice to pay the upcoming fuel costs. Secondly you'll hardly see these big electric trucks on the roads delivery food to shops, trucks use fuel at approx 8 mpg . This country isn't ready for any of this, the cost of living is going to shoot up,

Micky 32 wrote: »

So you're saying it's not going to cost people more after next months budget then?

I haven't commented on our budget at all. FG is in power, of course they're going to tax the shit out of average people, and give tax breaks to the rich - that's what they do, that's what they're in power to do.

I'm talking about the actual solutions to resolving climate change, that are being popularized - like the Green New Deal.

pjohnson

weldoninhio wrote: »

Nobody in this thread had denied climate change. Climate change has happened from the birth of the earth and will continue until the death of the earth. It happened before humans, it will happen after humans. :rolleyes:

Won't be engaging with your waffle any more.

So you now accept science this morning after your rambling about scientific theories not being evidence. Thats a relief.

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Nobody says it... except for the people who do. Gotcha.

You can only gain a technicality on this - by deliberately choosing to take a statement you know is intentionally hyperbolic/exaggerated, as being literal - and by ignoring the quoted persons other stated views, that it is really about tipping points and not literal 'end of the world' deadlines.

So in order to go for that technicality, you have to show to all other posters in the thread, that you are willing to be disingenuous, and to wilfully miss the point - in order to try and push a talking point that is essentially untrue, and is not arguing in good faith.

If you want to very visibly cover yourself in shit like that, to all other posters - go ahead and continue.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Of course it's going to involve crippling taxes on the average Joe. Carbon tax will also increase goods and services up quite a bit, unless the average wage will increase but I doubt it.

Well for instance the government get the lion's share of the price of petrol. If we're moving away from that, it's gotta be made up for elsewhere. So it could seem like "crippling" but they're just redistributing the taxes. It'll deffo be on the upward curve though

KyussB wrote: »

No it doesn't - that's not how government finances work.

The carbon tax is about dissuading fossil fuel sources - and the Green New Deal is about a very rapid moving away from fossil fuel sources - it doesn't involve taxing the shit out of people, if we're rapidly moving away from fossil fuel sources.

The Green New Deal also includes a Job Guarantee, which keeps everybody employed even in the depths of economic recession - which does actually put upwards pressure on the lower end of wages, and wages overall, through increased worker bargaining power (nobody will ever fear for having a job).

So you're saying it's not going to cost people more after next months budget then?

alswearengen

Jackman25 wrote: »

There seems to be this narrative that middle-aged white men are losing their **** over Greta.
I'm not really seeing this at all. Seems to me any criticism of her has people losing their ****. Look at the reaction to fairly innocuous comments by Tubridy yesterday

Didn't you get the memo? Only minorities and those with a vagina can have opinion on any current affairs topic.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Of course it's going to involve crippling taxes on the average Joe. Carbon tax will also increase goods and services up quite a bit, unless the average wage will increase but I doubt it.

No it doesn't - that's not how government finances work.

The carbon tax is about dissuading fossil fuel sources - and the Green New Deal is about a very rapid moving away from fossil fuel sources - it doesn't involve taxing the shit out of people, if we're rapidly moving away from fossil fuel sources.

The Green New Deal also includes a Job Guarantee, which keeps everybody employed even in the depths of economic recession - which does actually put upwards pressure on the lower end of wages, and wages overall, through increased worker bargaining power (nobody will ever fear for having a job).

Nobody says it... except for the people who do. Gotcha.

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

[noparse]
https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1087443780565782528[/noparse]

That's a bad narrative/hyperbole - all of these people are saying we reach a climate change tipping point after 12 years - none of them literally mean the world ends in 12 years.

We've already reached a tipping point where climate change is going to be causing damage, really - we're at the stage of damage control, not prevention, already - and the 12 years is about arresting further tipping points, that would make things even worse.

KyussB wrote: »

It's simply not true that the efforts for fighting climate change involve crippling taxes for the average joe. That's just a basic misconception about government finances, thinking that governments run balanced budgets all the time, and thus the idea government spending matches up 1:1 with taxes - utter horeshit.

Of course it's going to involve crippling taxes on the average Joe. Carbon tax will also increase goods and services up quite a bit, unless the average wage will increase but I doubt it.

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Nobody? I've seen it at plenty of climate protests. Saw it only last week. That AoC was spouting it in the states. I'm *sure* I've heard it from other quarters also in the media.

Well you should have a closer look at what they say then, as nobody says we're 12 years from doomsday.

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1087443780565782528

Micky 32 wrote: »

Whether climate change is man made or not this is an excuse about taxing people more the rich will get richer the poor will get poorer. They are rubbing their hands on all this extra money they'll bring in over the next few years. They should only charge carbon tax when all the other options and incentives are all in place.

Also not only will the taxpayer have to foot the bill for their own carbon tax you'll be footing the carbon tax bill for the morons in the dail. You'll be paying for the extra expenses that Leo fella and friends will incur, especially on the fuel when they jet everywhere especially on Paddy's day to New York. None of them will curb their carbon footprint because we'll be paying for it for them.

It's simply not true that the efforts for fighting climate change involve crippling taxes for the average joe. That's just a basic misconception about government finances, thinking that governments run balanced budgets all the time, and thus the idea government spending matches up 1:1 with taxes - utter horeshit.

KyussB wrote: »

Nobody says that.

Nobody? I've seen it at plenty of climate protests. Saw it only last week. That AoC was spouting it in the states. I'm *sure* I've heard it from other quarters also in the media.

randd1 wrote: »

I can see it now.

The break down of civilisation. Random acts of rape, murder, arson, theft, vicious assaults, rampant drug use.

You never know, it might be a bit of craic.

I'd be pissed off at having contributed to a pension, taking on a mortgage and engaging in the career rat race.

And we only have three World Cups left, and one of them is that crap Winter one in Qatar.

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

It must be quite the mental strain for all the folks who believe we're 12 years from doomsday. I dunno what I'd do if that were me.

Nobody says that.

batman_oh wrote: »

Some actual ideas would be nice instead of just shouting and probably more tax on the average person - something that won't have any effect on the rich/elite and their lifestyle.

There are too many people for a start, this is probably the most significant drain on the planet

Whether climate change is man made or not this is an excuse about taxing people more the rich will get richer the poor will get poorer. They are rubbing their hands on all this extra money they'll bring in over the next few years. They should only charge carbon tax when all the other options and incentives are all in place.

Also not only will the taxpayer have to foot the bill for their own carbon tax you'll be footing the carbon tax bill for the morons in the dail. You'll be paying for the extra expenses that Leo fella and friends will incur, especially on the fuel when they jet everywhere especially on Paddy's day to New York. None of them will curb their carbon footprint because we'll be paying for it for them.

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the thing - the majority are not directly "attacking" anyone. That many are genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of greta and have voiced this is good. But it is informing indeed to see that charge levied against any criticism whether that relates to the validity of what is being said or the evident dog and pony show that goes along with this whole debacle.

The old 'attack' accusation is simply used to try and shut every other opinion down on the basis 'because she is a child!'

Those who should face disappropriation are the adults who have put the 'child' in this position and and are attempting to use her presence to silence any criticism. Shame on them.

You were shouting down actual plans/solutions to resolving climate change issue earlier in this thread, by screeching 'Communism!' all the time - to shut down discussion pretty much.

Nobody believes you or others are 'concerned' for her wellbeing, when you're backslapping the same posters using her being mentally ill, as a term of disparagement.

It's visible that you fully know yourself, that you have no 'concern' for her - given how the faux nature of it is obvious to just about anyone regularly following the thread - and it shows that your posts are not in good faith and not genuine, that you're pushing a talking point without giving a toss about whether it's true or not.

Mebuntu

NIMAN wrote: »

I do hope she doesn't get damaged from all this.

She is already damaged, severely, and the fallout from this for her will not be good. Worse still, allowing her to pontificate nonsense and untruths without challenge means that countless other children are being damaged on a daily basis. Just ask the parents who try to shield their young children as best they can from the adult world who have to deal with this when their children come home from school with tales of terror.

This damaged child should be gagged from robbing other children of their childhood.

weldoninhio

pjohnson wrote: »

You deny science. Even dafter. Say the line there again Welly go on.

Wait are you agreeing with Welly now re. Man made climate change and CO2?

Nobody in this thread had denied climate change. Climate change has happened from the birth of the earth and will continue until the death of the earth. It happened before humans, it will happen after humans. :rolleyes:

Won't be engaging with your waffle any more.

randd1

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

It must be quite the mental strain for all the folks who believe we're 12 years from doomsday. I dunno what I'd do if that were me.

I can see it now.

The break down of civilisation. Random acts of rape, murder, arson, theft, vicious assaults, rampant drug use.

You never know, it might be a bit of craic.