Pa ElGrande wrote: » [noparse] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siUu3zuLN60 [/noparse] Milking the tax cattle, gin up the alarmism, hide behind children then grab the power.
Graces7 wrote: » Interesting idea. will not work of course.
reg114 wrote: » So much nit picking and mindless squabbling about carbon taxes and how dare the authorities apply even more taxes to citizens 'already overburdened'. Nero fiddled while Rome burned to the ground. Folks, peoples' moaning about the inconvenience of carbon taxes will be mocked by future generations because they will have been proven by then , ( 20 / 30 years time) to have been completely useless. As of 2019, it is irrefutable that global temperatures will rise by at the most conservative estimate 2 degrees, this has been backed up by 97% of Climate scientists based on cold hard facts and statistics. Global warming is already a reality so faffing about over carbon taxes and carbon credits is finger in the dam stuff. From 1901 to 1990 sea levels rose by 1mm per year, from 1993 to 2010 sea levels rose 3 mm per year, thats an exponential increase in sea level rising which is already having terminal implications for global weather conditions nevermind the fact that 65 % of the worlds population lives within a few kilometres of the sea. Yet people are banging on about carbon taxes ?!!! Folks a reality check is needed. Economic growth based on consumerism / materialism has gone unchecked since the industrial revolution, global temperatures rising, polar caps melting and the destruction of the rain forests have occurred simultaneously. What people refuse to accept is either humanity radically alters how it goes about its business or face the inevitable cataclysmic ecological consequences. This isnt scaremongering, is will absolutely come to pass in the near future. Its beyond ludicrous that an American company like Apple for example. produce phones in China which are then transported by cargo ships to Ireland. Thats a distance of 10,000 nautical miles for you to have a shiny new iPhone in your pocket .. And yet the vast majority of goods we purchase in ireland come from the far east. This simply cannot continue. The only way humanity can halt global warming beyond 2 degrees globally is to change our way of life. Consumerism which encourages buying the latest of everything every year cannot continue. Mass ownership of petrol / diesel guzzling cars should be ended yesterday. Foreign travel would have to be severely curtailed until a carbon neutral mode of international transport for an island like Island has been discovered. This is just the very tip of the iceberg to use an ironic saying given the context. Everything will be affected from the clothes we wear to the food we eat. People will scoff suggesting these few measures are utterly alarmist, indeed such scoffing is the philosophy of climate change deniers who always remind me of the character of Larry Vaughan , The obdurate Mayor of Amity in Jaws, who insists the status quo must persist and that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Folks I urge you to inform yourselves of the science like Greta Thunberg has done, read Naomi Klein's book This changes everything, which distills all the information you need about the life altering seriousness that we face as a human race. You will then see how ridiculously pathetic it is to be arguing about pitifully pointless carbon taxes.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » That does not invalidate what I said science is not done by consensus and NASA have been requested to correct their misinformation. In addition the 97% marketing ploy has been thoroughly debunked.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » No she is not. When she speaks of "the science" it is used in the same context as a preacher who asks you to accept the bible as "the word of God". There is no such thing as "the united science", this is a construct to avoid questioning and enforce a consensus on the population. There is no consensus regarding climate change. It is just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture. Not only that, if they had the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » So are you and the people who thanked that post agreeing that the CO2 produced by airlines are causing man made climate change?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Hopefully carbon taxes on fuel encourage people not to live in the middle of nowhere being totally reliant on cars which we are wont to do in Ireland, and we start to develop and plan our towns and cities in a way that encourages people to walk and cycle and use public transport more
lleti wrote: » Ironic considering the concrete jungles are a reason there's no drainage in cities for the water and that's why there's flooding. Also ironic considering the amount of concrete etc that needs to be pumped into cities and buildings there.... Show me a countryside house covered in smog where the habitants wear face masks.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Thanks for dropping those links in without supporting them. Obviously you didn't read them. . . .
Pa ElGrande wrote: » You did not contest why the explanations they gave were wrong so I must conclude they are correct in their assessment or you either did not read those links or failed to comprehend what they said and you instead resorted to attacking the messengers. For background Richard Tol agrees with the AGW hypothesis and was involved with previous IPCC reports, however he fell out of favour when he disagreed with the many unsupported claims of the climate alarmists and asked for his name to be removed from the IPCC reports. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lCWDeoWzo If you are a scientist or even economist who wishes to disagree with the IPCC reports, you will pay a high price professionally and you will be targeted by university administrations, lawfare plus will be smeared by activist organisations like Greenpeace, SKS and desmog blog. Understandably scientists and economists are human and have families to care for, they have seen the intimidation tactics visited on those individuals who dare to disagree and have wisely decided to keep their heads down. In the long term of course the facts prevail and the scares will just be added to decades of climate scares. As an example Dr. Tim Ball was a retired Canadian who was targeted 3 times with strategic lawsuits against public participation. In the process he and his wife lost their entire life savings contesting these. He was lucky that a wealthy sponsor who was also a scientist came to his aid, it took several years but they prevailed and won defending against Dr. Micheal Mann of the discredited hockeystick fame. Defending against these lawfare cases cost over $1 million. A current case in Australia involves Dr. Peter Ridd, which has cost Mr. Ridd and his wife AU$200,000 of their life savings and their ordeal is not over as James Cook University is appealing with the intention knowing that Dr. Ridd does not have the resources to continue this fight without huge personal sacrifice.
lleti wrote: » Oh well I can only speak for myself and I agree 100% climate change is man made but I am of the opinion that to cut emissions to the required level they are all talking about we'd have to go back to the living standards of several hundred years ago or drastically cut the population, both of which will not happen for sure. Also, there is no safe level of emissions. Everything does damage. That means, any emissions we cut down on just delays things rather than eliminates them. Humans use resources to survive. All talk about thinking of future generations, what if we slow climate change and then by the time the population is 10b we have the same problem? An extra 3b people that have to suffer. All this talk of climate change and we must do something is only kicking the can down the road. It's actually quite selfish to just try and delay climate change so you or your grandkids don't have to face the consequences but your great great great grandkids will have to suffer. As for species going extinct? That's what happens and it's happened throughout the history of the planet. The dodo went extinct in 1600's. If the dodo went extinct in 2019 everyone would be saying climate change is the reason.
dvdman1 wrote: » Sounds like you've given up already...if we find a way to take carbon out of the air on a big scale we may be saved...we've got to have hope, its the reason we will find ways to innovate and change..once we dont reach the tipping points our grandchildren will be ok..yes its a tall order and its depressing. Im a firm believer in technology n science so if u have kids u know what to get them to study.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Perhaps the science exists or will soon exist. However, the political will to implement those technological remedies doesn't exist and isn't even on the horizon.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » There are quick wins which governments are not pursuing both here and elsewhere. All talk, but no action or willpower.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » More links that you haven't read. Nah. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
lleti wrote: » Yeah it's not like Trump, Johnson or May were mocked over their appearance :rolleyes:
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Oh sorry it must be all true then. Oh yes typical of your type that thinks that anyone who doesnt believe in god is trying to be right on and edgy. Say a prayer for me.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siUu3zuLN60
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Hence the protesting. Hopefully something comes of it.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Her protests are really not going to achieve anything. What might achieve something is to address globalisation and the notion of trade and economic growth. Trade is ruinous to the environment. Good for the economy, good for jobs, but terrible for carbon emissions and the misuse of resources. I'm leaning towards the view she's a bit spoiled and looking for attention. As Jeremy Clarkson said, the people really making a difference are doing it in a low key way behind the scenes, unsung heroes who never get a mention, people working in the renewable energy sector for example.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Those people aren't really doing enough on their own though.Yes we need to stop with this destructive capitalism and find a new way to live, it's the only way we can avoid war, famine etc.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Her protests are really not going to achieve anything. What might achieve something is to address globalisation and the notion of trade and economic growth. Trade is ruinous to the environment. Good for the economy, good for jobs, but terrible for carbon emissions and the misuse of resources. I'm leaning towards the view she's a bit spoiled and looking for attention. As Jeremy Clarkson said, the people really making a difference are doing it in a low key way behind the scenes, unsung heroes who never get a mention, people working in the renewable energy sector for example. Those people aren't really doing enough on their own though. Yes we need to stop with this destructive capitalism and find a new way to live, it's the only way we can avoid war, famine etc.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » No issue with that. Look at the resources needed to build some of the huge cargo ships plying the seas. And the oil needed to power them. Just one example of how trade uses vast resources. Politicians love trade deals, but they rarely ask questions about the environmental impact. Mercosur is a case in point, it has the potential to seriously impact the environment of South America. More trade and more capitalism is not really progress.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Do you think stopping capitalism as you said would end war and famine? Have the most devastating societies been in or caused by capitalist societies?
SafeSurfer wrote: » Have the most devastating societies been in or caused by capitalist societies?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Well our massive beef and dairy industry seriously impacts our own environment and we export 90% of it, so who are we to criticise Mercosur really.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » But it doesn't make sense for us to produce beef and also import beef. That would be madness but that's what Mercosur will be about. Its just a crazy deal driven by big business in the EU. I believe we export most beef to the UK, but agreed, we shouldn't be exporting to China for example. At the same time, we don't burn down rainforest to rear our cattle.
