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

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Anyway enough of Beata Thunberg and back on topic...

I believe Greta is up for the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday (?)

Details of the announcement - "The Nobel Peace Prize for 2019 will be announced at a press conference on Friday 11 October 11:00 am (CEST), at the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Henrik Ibsens gate 51, Oslo." (I've always in enjoyed my trips to Oslo)
That would be some achievement!
Will be keeping an ear out myself anyway.

Indeed. Beata and Greta share more than a surname evidently. Pushy parents ? I wonder do the parents have any influence with the Nobel prize Committee as well (Joke). The prize would be a great boost to gretas career for sure.

Gretas distant relative - Svante Arrhenius who effectively 'discovered' greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide also won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1903. Bizarre such a coincidence. Two in the family - that would be a coup indeed ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/climate-change-food-global-heating-livestock

You guys will love this article lol.

Perhaps the biggest problem: livestock. They use a third of global cropland and contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. A recent New Yorker articlenoted that “[every] 4lbs of beef you eat contributes to as much global warming as flying from New York to London – and the average American eats that much each month.”

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/climate-change-food-global-heating-livestock

You guys will love this article lol.

Thelonious you're killing me with the beef facts. I love a burger! I'm praying I like this Impossible Foods Burger, or I'm screwed!

lleti wrote: »

Where are her parents?

I can't imagine a 16 year old autist being so happy to be aware from her parents for so long.

I met a German girl who worked in a bank the other night but her really passion was in photography and she kept telling me that at heart she was an autist.

Anyway getting back on topic and away from the various **** slinging episodes from those who believe greta is god or wtte and shouldn't be under discussion. I came across the following which details the singing career of Beata Thunberg - gretas sister. Why is this relevant I hear you say - bare (sic) with me...

Double whammy here.

A - You spend the day telling people things should only be discussed if they are referenced in the thread title, which, in your view excludes discussion of those publishing misinformation relating to the climate issue, but apparently Greta's sisters singing career is acceptable. Ross didn't pivot as much in that episode of Friends as you are doing here.

B - Your incorrect use of the word 'bare' above allows me to give you an example of the correct way to use the (sic) principle which I have added for your benefit. Glad to help.

Tell me how wrote: »

Double whammy here.A - You spend the day telling people things should only be discussed if they are referenced in the thread title, which, in your view excludes discussion of those publishing misinformation relating to the climate issue, but apparently Greta's sisters singing career is acceptable. Ross didn't pivot as much in that episode of Friends as you are doing here.
B - Your incorrect use of the word 'bare' above allows me to give you an example of the correct way to use the (sic) principle which I have added for your benefit. Glad to help.

Chxrst your comments are fairly desperate lol. Greta and Beata obviously do have a lot in common - both being directed by (pushy) parents into media careers - even if you like to deny that - funny that. And yes greta in the US is referred to in that post. And no I did not refer to Beata's singing career as 'acceptable'. Check again if you dont believe me. You are quoting Friends! as source material now? Brilliant.

Aha even more grammar nazi action :pac: and yes I do know that 'bare' means “to reveal” or “to uncover.” T'was simply a small play on words - min lilla vän. Reckon you'd get the knickers in a twist over that and I was right again

Btw - Still dont believe that 'sic' is used to denote faulty logic or reasoning?

Here's an educational text book reference for you. You just might believe that. See: P125 #6.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=NwXMZ07Jp7UC&lpg=PA125&ots=0CBr3yDrYS&dq=sic%20faulty%20logic&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q=sic%20faulty%20logic&f=false
Happy now?

Well, the thread seems to have died...not entirely a bad thing imo, as it had become a pain in the arse tbh.

Still. The general topic of combating climate change, which Greta has done a fantastic job at bringing to the fore of public attention, is an important one. It'd be a shame to see the potential for useful discussion on the topic die (assuming the point of useful discussion can be reached at all...).

Taking solutions to climate change as being 'on topic', since discussion of this is what Greta promotes, here was an interesting article on how carbon in the atmosphere can be converted into useful fuel, which can be directly substituted for fossil fuels when combined with hydrogen generation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/08/carbon-engineering-taking-co2-right-out-of-the-air-to-make-gasoline/

Capturing of carbon like this, combined with generation of hydrogen to produce hydrocarbons, can (from what I can tell) both be done using electricity - which means that converting our economies to being carbon-neutral, involves generating enough renewable energy to both power our immediate energy demands - combined with charging enough energy storage for the times when renewables can't provide the needed supply - and producing enough hydrocarbons from renewable energy for sectors of our economy which will be dependent on hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future - if you combine all of these basic things, then you effectively solve climate change by creating economies which are not just carbon neutral, but have the potential to be carbon negative (by taking more carbon from the atmosphere, than is released into the atmosphere).

The primary constraints to rolling out mass-production of the above energy generation and storage are rare-earths. If we can substitute rare-earths for both energy generation from renewables (already lots of promising avenues for this), and for energy storage (again lots of promising avenues for this), then we resolve the basic resource constraints that make cracking the issue of climate change difficult.

This is low hanging fruit, I'm confident this can be done, if undertaken on a big enough scale. The scale requried, can't be done using for-profit-based private industry - it can only be done through government R&D projects, undertaken worldwide.

I believe this is a pan-ideological issue. It can be undertaken by Capitalist governments and Socialist/Communist governments both (and it needs to be undertaken by both - it require the whole planets combined efforts). I think the R&D projects advocated by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (who Greta has met with and is supportive of) and Bernie Sanders, under the Green New Deal, are ideal for this - since they advocate massive government investment in the needed R&D, and massive government investment in the infrastructural changes needed (based on that R&D).

My view, that this is achievable by 2030 with the necessary government-led R&D and infrastructural investment, is an optimistic one. If it's taken seriously enough, though - I do believe it's completely possible - but it needs rapid/urgent effort, not just in the US but worldwide, starting immediately.

Tell me how wrote: »

I expected to see posts on the thread earlier today after the budget adding climate affiliated taxes yesterday.

Greta's message of the need for climate action is a necessary one, and it is going to have to be taken up by many more.

I was frustrated to see no significant action on positive steps towards helping people cut down on car use. 9M for cycling infrastructure is less than €2 per person for the year. A pittance.

That is what is frustrating, to see people deny the climate issue and say government are only going to raise taxes but not act, it shows how far we have to move to get positive action. If everyone was on the same page that there is a problem then we would be able to motivate/enforce a government who will act, people not even seeing a problem, or detracting from Greta's message is giving the government an out in not acting.

'and it is going to have to be taken up by many more', we don't have to take up any message we don't want to take up, we do however have to pay taxes. What's the point of Thunberg's campaign if we're just going to have to put up and shut up anyway? Ordinary people have to pay whatever taxes the gov conjures up, they have sfa choice in the matter. We could do without the lecturing and patronisation though.

How many on here are actually denying climate change? It seems to be mostly issues with Thunberg being used as a proxy to shove an agenda down people's throats. Hardly anybody is denying that there is actually a problem, it's opposition to the belief that punitive measures on ordinary people will slow or reverse climate change. Much more emphasis should be placed on plastics and pollution as well as soil erosion, things we can actually realistically do something about.

lleti wrote: »

Wonder what Greta thinks about the power shutoff in Cali.

Best place for information regarding Greta is her twitter account. FYI

lleti wrote: »

Wonder what Greta thinks about the power shutoff in Cali.
Dirty fossil fuels not being used to power homes is great for the climate. Would love to see Greta tell the people affected what a great thing it is.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/1010/1082273-california-power-outages-wildfires/

Perhaps somewhat ironic - that it is the power company responsible some of Californias most serious fires in recent times who are shutting down supply

The Company That's Caused California Wildfires Is Cutting Off Power to 2 Million People to Avoid Another One

The state of California allowed PG&E to start charging customers billions more so it could upgrade its grid. The company still hasn't.

The utility giant responsible for deadly California wildfires announced Tuesday that it would shut off power to about 2.4 million people for several days to avoid another round of catastrophic blazes. Some 500,000 Californians are already without power.

The company, PG&E, filed for bankruptcy in January after coming under a barrage of lawsuits relating to its role in the fires in California in the last two years. The utility’s equipment failures were responsible for several deadly wildfires. Most recently, the Camp Fire killed 85 people in Paradise, California, when a live wire broke loose from one of the company’s towers. PG&E’s own guidelines put the tower 25 years beyond its useful life, according to the New York Times.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kezje/the-company-thats-caused-california-wildfires-is-cutting-off-power-to-2-million-people-to-avoid-another-one

As for all r&d advocated to become carbon neutral by 2030. Complete and utter horrlicks. I'd suggest 3030 as a more realistic date. It is evident that existing upgrades like the one detailed in this article cant be achieved even with huge prices hikes and yet we are expected to swallow the same type of tax increases here. Governments love any excuse for a new tax - and isn't it great that they now have a bunch of day dreamers who think this is a great idea altogether.

But wait not all is lost! It would seem that if we invoke the holy name of greta many times - then all this will magically happen :rolleyes:

TheloniousMonk wrote: »

Environmentalists want a huge reduction in the amount of meat we eat, regardless of where it comes from, everyone knows this, they've been peeping about it for years.

No certainly its not the 'environmentalists' saying that. The 'no meat' / reduction rubbish is mainly coming from the screamers in the plant food lobby - like the now discredited EAT Lancett report. And no 'everyone' does not know this. Some people simply need to start thinking for themselves

Here's the issues discussed without hype

https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-1/

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They want a lot of mad things that are never going to happen.

Eat red meat, drive a V8 car, smoke cigarettes, live in the countryside , be happy

Exactly, and no amount of screeching from the great hunberg is going to change it.

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think there needs to be change?
Greta does, and so she is trying to promote it.
If you have a problem with that, you either think there is no need for the change she is talking about, or you are annoyed that it is Greta getting the message out there.

What is it?

There needs to be change.
The shrieking of a child being fed lines from ecomentalists is not how to go about it.


When I was young and children screeched they were punished. Not humored at a meeting of the UN.