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

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/11/the-problem-with-the-green-new-deal.

The article doesn't have any meaningful criticism of the GND - it gets basic things wrong, like implying the GND has no plan for funding e.g. a Job Guarantee or that it requires tax hikes, when proponents of a JG always emphasize how for the US - a country with control over its own currency - funding limits are artificial, and the real measure of what the economy can afford, is based on what the government can fund without trying to push the economy past Maximum-GDP/Full-Output (the JG is actually a giant macroeconomic program, for keeping the economy in balance at Full Output - even moreso than it is an employment program).

The US can easily afford a Job Guarantee - it can easily afford to spin up a massive R&D program for developing/advancing renewable energy generation/storage, and reduction of rare earth usage to help roll this out into worldwide mass-production, without the damaging environmental effects of ming rare earths - it can easily afford to retrofit the entire economy for energy efficiency such as e.g. insulating every inhabited structure to a high standard - etc. etc..

There are no economic impediments, just political ones which are based around vehement oppositon to any large government spending programs or large-scale government influence in the economy - it's simply a matter of making these things a priority, politically.

EDIT: Reduced the post down to referencing only the quoted article, since the poster can't respond.

KyussB wrote: »

Ya good point about the security implications - the funny thing is, while the US has their own immigration concerns/issues, it's actually the US which is causing all of the EU's immigration issues, due to wars in the middle east and destabilization of e.g. North-Africa/Libya - also causing issues on our (the EU's) borders with Ukraine and such.

So yea, while it's a concern for the US too, I don't think they overall care a whole lot, what effect it has on the EU - the political effects of immigration probably are even useful, in making politics more extreme in Europe.

Whilst I would agree that what I would consider a mixture of wag the dog politics and more traditional geopolitical concerns of empire are largely responsible for the destabilisation of the middle east, it's probably not the place to delve deeper. Regarding the motivations for the security concerns of the military and intelligence agencies of the US, with relation to the threat of climate change, I would also agree that altruism isn't a primary concern. Case in point, the following article explores that topic further:

https://tinyurl.com/yaxvc5an

"As the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review recognized, climate change presents two distinct types of threats: direct threats to government military installations and indirect geopolitical and global economic threats.

With respect to the threat to military installations, there is consensus that climate change is an existing, and escalating, threat to U.S. military readiness, operations, supply chains and infrastructure because of the direct impact of climate change-related weather events on military facilities such as permanent installations in the U.S., bases and facilities abroad and forward-deployed forces. The unplanned evacuation of 30 ships from U.S. Naval Station Norfolk during Hurricane Florence in September 2018 and the destruction of hangars at Tyndall Air Force Base as a result of Hurricane Michael one month later are only the most recent example of this kind of impact."

Note:

Lawfare is a blog dedicated to national security issues, published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. The Economist describes Brookings as "perhaps America’s most prestigious think-tank".

Akrasia wrote: »

There are some scenarios where climate change is harmful but manageable, best case scenarios, and there are some scenarios where climate change causes a literal apocalypse (resource shortages causing conflict, mass immigration ultimately leading to WW3)

And then there are all the scenarios in the middle, of which there are many plausible outcomes that have very negative outcomes including runaway climate change if we breach certain tipping points.

And then there are all the scenarios where there are positive changes for many, improved yields, better precipitation, milder temperatures, etc. You very conveniently failed to mention those, but then that's nothing new.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

"The country, already grappling with the Rohingya crisis, now faces a devastating migration problem as hundreds of thousands face an impossible choice between battered coastlines and urban slums..

Bangladesh, a densely populated, riverine South Asian nation, has always survived its share of tropical storms, flooding, and other natural disasters. But today, climate change is accelerating old forces of destruction, creating new patterns of displacement, and fueling an explosion of rapid, chaotic urbanization..

And as climate change drives the migration of up to 200 million people worldwide by 2050, Dhaka offers a cautionary tale for refuge cities around the globe..

People have always coped with flooding, and they learned how to cope with death,” Siddiqui says. “But with climate change, many of the damages are permanent. So you have to adapt to a new way of life."

You can read more here:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/climate-change-drives-migration-crisis-in-bangladesh-from-dhaka-sundabans/

Lots of empty statements in that piece, not backed up by specific scientific references. Typical of the reporting of basically every severe weather event now.

It might interest you to know that the prime problem with Bangladhesh is not changing sea levels but subsiding coastlines, which has been at a rate of over 5 mm/year over at least the past 300 years. If sea level didn't budge, there would still be a major problem.

Much scientific evidence of the rate of land-loss has been grossly exaggerated. Have a read of the following paper to see more details. Again, you will never see the following discussed. No, keep points like this well hidden from public view.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631300003X

There is a widespread misconception that a rising sea-level with global warming will overwhelm Bangladesh’s coastal area contour by contour and will thereby displace as many as 10–30 million people in the 21st century e.g., (Gore, 2009, Houghton, 2009). In some accounts, that situation will be aggravated by high rates of land subsidence (Syvitski et al., 2009), a recent doubling of the rate of sea-level rise (Smith, 2012) and rapid, on-going rates of coastal erosion (Vidal, 2013a, Vidal, 2013b). The accounts given to-date imply that the Bangladeshi people are helpless against a rising sea-level and will be unable to resist the rising water.

Those assumptions and descriptions are incorrect. Bangladesh’s coastal area is not uniform, nor is it static. It is dynamic, and so are the people of Bangladesh. Environmental scientists have an important role to play in establishing environmental facts in order to identify practical, area-specific, mitigation measures to counter realistically-probable impacts of sea-level rise in different geographical regions. This account illustrates the kinds of information on geomorphology, hydrology, soils, land use and socio-economic geography that are needed to provide a sound basis for planning area-specific measures to counter sea-level rise in low-lying coastal areas elsewhere in the world.

Rapid geomorphological changes are taking place in the Meghna estuary (Subregions Jaa, Jab). The Google Earth image in Fig. 2 shows the 1943 land boundaries superimposed on the 2013 land boundaries2. Comparison of Landsat images taken in 1984 and 2007 showed a net land gain of 451 km2 in the Meghna estuary within that period, representing an average annual growth rate of 19.6 km2 (Fig. 3) Brammer, in press. Earlier, Allison (1998) had calculated annual net gains of 14.8 km2 between 1792 and 1840 and of 4.4 km2 between 1840 and 1984. This historical evidence of large-scale net annual land gains in the Meghna estuary suggests that land gain might exceed land loss resulting from the slow rates of sea-level rise projected for the 21st century. That would be especially likely if predicted increases in monsoon rainfall increased run-off and river sediment loads in the Brahmaputra–Ganges–Meghna (GBM) catchment area; and new land could also be added by continued land reclamation in the north-east of Subregion Ja by constructing cross-dams to link new islands with the mainland (de Wilde, 2011). On the other hand, accretion rates could be reduced if future dam construction in the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna catchment area reduced river sediment loads significantly.

Fig. 2, Fig. 3 show that, although there was a net gain of land, there were also considerable land losses in the Meghna estuary. For instance, about 40% of Sandwip island in the east was eroded, (not the 90% reported by Vidal (2013a)), and there were considerable losses in the north of Hatia, north-east of Bhola and the south-west of the former Ramgati island. Beyond the estuary, rates of coastal change are small or undetectable. On the south-western coast (Region E), there have been small amounts of erosion locally, with amounts generally increasing westward towards the Hooghly estuary in India (Fig. 3); Allison (1998) made similar observations. These rates are much less than the dramatic erosion rate of 200 m a year reported by Vidal (2013b) in the Sunderbans area (in and adjoining Subregion Ed in Fig. 1). In the south-east, changes are generally small or undetectable on the coast of the Chittagong Coastal Plains (Region L), except in the south of Kutubdia island which lost approximately 10% of its previous area, (not the 50% reported by Vidal (2013a)). The exaggerated reports by Vidal − based in the first case on selective reporting from a technical study of the Sunderbans using satellite image analysis unsupported by ground-truthing, and in the second case on unchecked accounts by displaced persons − are quoted here because they provide examples of situations where scientists can themselves check exaggerated media reports of coastal changes in Bangladesh by examining Google Earth satellite images which (at present, at least) give 1943 land boundaries as a reference base.

Bangladesh’s exposure to the growing hazard of sea-level rise in the 21st century needs to be seen in the perspective of its exposure to current environmental hazards and its growing development needs. If sea-level is currently rising at 1.3 mm/year, that is by only 13 mm (= 0.5 inch) in 10 years. Even if the rate is 3 mm/year, that is by only 30 mm (=1.2 inches) in 10 years. But Bangladesh’s population of 150 million is currently growing at ca 2 million a year: i.e., it could grow by 20 million in the next 10 years. That will generate much greater pressure on the country’s land and water resources and its economy than will a slowly-rising sea-level. The country’s agricultural land is already fully developed; in fact, considerable areas of valuable farmland are being lost to expansion of settlements and infrastructure each year (Brammer, 2010). Priority attention therefore needs to be paid to addressing current development and environmental problems: i.e., intensifying agricultural production; expanding economic activities outside agriculture; reducing exposure to existing levels of drought, floods and cyclones; supplementing dry-season flow in south-western rivers; and minimising impacts of arsenic-contaminated groundwater used for drinking and irrigation in large parts of the country (Ravenscroft et al., 2009). Rates of sea-level rise may increase and demand more urgent attention later in the 21st century, but Bangladesh faces serious problems now that need urgent attention if the country is to sustain its ability to feed, support and safeguard the livelihoods of its population in the short and medium terms.

1800_Ladladlad

This sums up about how silly the fantasist culture is

https://twitter.com/BrandonStraka/status/1193014357782867968

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Lots of empty statements in that piece, not backed up by specific scientific references. Typical of the reporting of basically every severe weather event now.

It might interest you to know that the prime problem with Bangladhesh is not changing sea levels but subsiding coastlines

Ok thanks for the link. It's a very interesting website. I started reading the piece but I'd like to clarify,before continuing, what we are discussing. So for instance you say there are lots of empty statements not backed up by specific references. Could you give one or two examples for me to explore. Also I reread the article I posted and i'm not sure it stated that that the primary problem was rising sea levels or changing as you put it. For example it says and I quote:

"Climate change is disrupting traditional rain patterns—droughts in some areas, unexpected deluges in others—and boosting silt-heavy runoff from glaciers in the Himalaya Mountains upstream, leading to an increase in flooding and riverbank erosion. Every year, an area larger than Manhattan washes away. Meanwhile, sea-level rise is pushing saltwater into coastal agricultural areas and promising to permanently submerge large swaths."

It is as you rightly pointed out not a scientific article but perhaps more an opinion piece mixed with anecdotal evidence and observation but it does highlight the impact that migration is having within that country and possible lessons that could be learnt.

Coincindentally, Tropical Cyclone Matmo is currently making landfall along the Bangladesh coast as a Cat 1 system. This system developed in the Bay of Bengal due to a combination of the strong MJO and IOD signals, which have led to an active period in the Indian Ocean and very dry conditions in northern Australia. All natural phenomena, if anyone would care to do some research outside of the hysteria, but no, it will make the news as yet more fuel for the Greta fire.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mjo/#tabs=Weekly-note

Issued 6 November 2019

Indian Ocean Dipole remains a key influencer of tropical climate

The very strong positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) continues to be a dominant climate driver affecting northern Australia and much of the Maritime Continent. Reduced cloudiness and rainfall has been apparent across the region for several months. Cooler than average sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Indian Ocean, along with an atmospheric circulation pattern which favours subsiding (descending) air over the broader Australian region, has led to a local environment which is unfavourable for widespread cloud formation and rainfall.

The latest weekly value of the IOD index was +2.0 °C, indicating the current positive IOD is most likely the strongest since 1997 and comparable with the three highest on record. As a result of this climate state, the rainfall outlook issued by the Bureau indicates a high likelihood of below-average rainfall for much of northern Australia in November and December. The positive IOD is also likely to lead to a delay in the onset of the Australian monsoon in 2019-20. Climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate the positive IOD is so strong that it is likely to take several weeks to decline and could persist into mid-summer.

Read more about the Indian Ocean Dipole.

Madden–Julian Oscillation strengthens over western Maritime Continent

A pulse of the Madden–Julian Oscillation (MJO) re-strengthened over the eastern Maritime Continent during the past week. This pulse had previously weakened rapidly as it encountered the unfavourable environment of the eastern Indian Ocean, a result of the 'blocking' effect of the positive IOD. As it moved out of this environment, the MJO pulse rapidly redeveloped and is forecast to track further east as a moderate to strong pulse in the coming fortnight.

At this time of the year, an MJO pulse over the eastern Maritime Continent and the western Pacific Ocean may help to enhance cloudiness and rainfall across parts of northern Australia and the Maritime Continent during the next week or two. The MJO is likely to increase the risk of tropical cyclone formation over the North Indian and western North Pacific oceans in the coming week or two.

Read more about the Madden–Julian Oscillation.

Ongoing storm activity over western North Pacific Ocean and Arabian Sea

Typhoon Halong developed on 2 November to the east of Guam and has become a very strong typhoon, with an intensity comparable to an Australian category 5 severe tropical cyclone, and sustained winds in excess of 210 km/h. Recent satellite analysis suggests Halong may be one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever observed in the satellite era (roughly since the 1970s). The current forecast track indicates it will remain over the open waters of the western North Pacific Ocean and not directly pass over populated land masses.

Tropical storm Nakri is currently off the west coast of Luzon, Philippines. It has recently attained tropical cyclone strength and is tracking west-to-northwest towards Vietnam. Current forecasts indicate Nakri could potentially make landfall on the Vietnamese coast at typhoon (Australian category 3 equivalent) strength in the next few days.

Tropical cyclone information for this region available at the Japan Meteorological Agency.

Following category 5 Super Cyclonic Storm Kyarr, Very Severe Cyclonic Storm Maha is active, although weakening, over the Arabian Sea, with sustained winds to 130 km/h (equivalent to an Australian category 3 severe tropical cyclone). Maha is expected to weaken further as it tracks eastwards towards the west coast of India in the coming days.

Tropical cyclone information for this region available at the Indian Meteorological Department.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Ok thanks for the link. It's a very interesting website. I started reading the piece but I'd like to clarify,before continuing, what we are discussing. So for instance you say there are lots of empty statements not backed up by specific references. Could you give one or two examples for me to explore. Also I reread the article I posted and i'm not sure it stated that that the primary problem was rising sea levels or changing as you put it. For example it says and I quote:

"Climate change is disrupting traditional rain patterns—droughts in some areas, unexpected deluges in others—and boosting silt-heavy runoff from glaciers in the Himalaya Mountains upstream, leading to an increase in flooding and riverbank erosion. Every year, an area larger than Manhattan washes away. Meanwhile, sea-level rise is pushing saltwater into coastal agricultural areas and promising to permanently submerge large swaths."

It is as you rightly pointed out not a scientific article but perhaps more an opinion piece mixed with anecdotal evidence and observation but it does highlight the impact that migration is having within that country and possible lessons that could be learnt.

The example you've given illustrates my point. Rule number 1, regardless of what type of piece it is you're writing, is to show that you can back up your statemtents with sound evidence. No such evidence, in the form of a simple link or name of a paper, is provided.

The link I provided and quoted also shows what I'm talking about.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The example you've given illustrates my point. Rule number 1, regardless of what type of piece it is you're writing, is to show that you can back up your statemtents with sound evidence. No such evidence, in the form of a simple link or name of a paper, is provided.

The link I provided and quoted also shows what I'm talking about.

Ok it seems you have a bee in your bonnet about something and looking to pick a fight with a stranger on the internet.I'm sorry but I have no interest in that. Life is difficult enough.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Ok it seems you have a bee in your bonnet about something and looking to pick a fight with a stranger on the internet.I'm sorry but I have no interest in that. Life is difficult enough.

I think you got me wrong. When I said "you" I meant it in the "one" sense of the word and was refering to the author of the Nat Geo article, not you.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think you got me wrong. When I said "you" I meant it in the "one" sense of the word and was refering to the author of the Nat Geo article, not you.

Ok sorry I did misunderstand you then. BTW I am aware that you post quite a bit about the Cryosphere and that is something I'm interested to learn more about. I will as I said read the article you posted but I'm not a trained scientist so it might go over my head.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Ok sorry I did misunderstand you then. BTW I am aware that you post quite a bit about the Cryosphere and that is something I'm interested to learn more about. I will as I said read the article you posted but I'm not a trained scientist so it might go over my head.

Well you're starting with an open mind and a willingness to learn, which is a good start. The information is out there, if you can get past the tide of media hyperbole.

Tell me how

She's only doing it for money they said.......

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1193284669149720586?s=19

Won awards and donated prize money to charity, now earnings from book going in same direction.
Well done Greta.

lola85

Tell me how wrote: »

She's only doing it for money they said.......

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1193284669149720586?s=19

Won awards and donated prize money to charity, now earnings from book going in same direction.
Well done Greta.

Will she put food on my table?

Tell me how

lola85 wrote: »

Will she put food on my table?

What kind of ridiculous comment is that?

[Deleted User]

when the full accounts are available, showing the entire family's income and expenses from all this, ill be interested then

lola85

Tell me how wrote: »

What kind of ridiculous comment is that?

See 2 ESB plants this week.

Does Greta care about those job losses?

Does she ****.

windy shepard henderson

A message to the environment people

What is your alternative to all them people losing there jobs in the Midlands

What dose the green deal do for them,

Hmm? Not sure why people in the Midlands would be losing their jobs - but the Green New Deal implements a Job Guarantee, which allows pretty much any type of job that would be deemed socially useful - which doesn't have to be limited to only profitable jobs (e.g. stuff like organizing community events, even just caring for an elderly family member etc.).

Ideally, though - there would be an emphasis on climate-focused jobs, while that is an emergency - and the breadth of work needed there, is pretty enormous and varied.

The purpose of the Job Guarantee is that nobody who wants a job would be out of a job.

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

A message to the environment people

What is your alternative to all them people losing there jobs in the Midlands

What dose the green deal do for them,

It gives them a sense that their descendants wont be suffering from man made environmental issues.

In the late 19th century, there were 300 coopers employed full time at Guinness's in James Gate. Then there were none. Things change.
Proponents of green deals recognize a need for alternative options to those currently employed in fossil industries.

Tell me how wrote: »

It gives them a sense that their descendants wont be suffering from man made environmental issues.

In the late 19th century, there were 300 coopers employed full time at Guinness's in James Gate. Then there were none. Things change.
Proponents of green deals recognize a need for alternative options to those currently employed in fossil industries.

That's a very good point. The reality is that not many people in today's society enjoy much in the way of job security anyway and society is changing rapidly regardless of whether action is taken on climate change. Since climate change presents an uncertain future it would seem wise to at least take some action to mitigate against the worst possible scenarios.

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

A message to the environment people

What is your alternative to all them people losing there jobs in the Midlands

What dose the green deal do for them,

Everybody is part of the environment. There's no escaping it yet. So you could ask yourself the same question as it's also your responsibility.

[Deleted User]

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Everybody is part of the environment.

I'm not..

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not..

How did you manage to escape and what's it like there?

[Deleted User]

Bit of a kip..

Deleted User wrote: »

Bit of a kip..

Ah well grass isn't always greener

ThunbergsAreGo

KyussB wrote: »

Hmm? Not sure why people in the Midlands would be losing their jobs - but the Green New Deal implements a Job Guarantee, which allows pretty much any type of job that would be deemed socially useful - which doesn't have to be limited to only profitable jobs (e.g. stuff like organizing community events, even just caring for an elderly family member etc.).

Ideally, though - there would be an emphasis on climate-focused jobs, while that is an emergency - and the breadth of work needed there, is pretty enormous and varied.

The purpose of the Job Guarantee is that nobody who wants a job would be out of a job.

Who determines socially useful?
That sounds like a load of bollix tbh.

People might not like their job, they will like not being able to provide for their family less

Tell me how wrote: »

It gives them a sense that their descendants wont be suffering from man made environmental issues.

Bank: FINAL WARNING: Dear Customer, your mortgage is still in arrears. This is your final warning.

Worker: But...but...I'm helping the environment for our descendants or something...

Bank: Dear Customer, in that case please ignore our last letter.

In the late 19th century, there were 300 coopers employed full time at Guinness's in James Gate. Then there were none. Things change.
Proponents of green deals recognize a need for alternative options to those currently employed in fossil industries.

And his question was, what are these alternatives. You didn't answer.

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Who determines socially useful?
That sounds like a load of bollix tbh.

People might not like their job, they will like not being able to provide for their family less

The people administering the Job Guarantee. There is already loads of work which isn't profitable, yet is done dor the social good - that's usually the whole point of governments, since they are the only economic entity that can run without a profit - stuff like providing public transport to areas that make a loss, most major infrastructure/capital projects make a loss to benefit the private economy (all those motorways...), the health servicse run at a loss for the good of society etc. etc..

Providing work that is socially beneficial yet not profitable is not 'bollix' - much of it is essential to society.

The Job Guarantee isn't for permanent jobs, though (it can be used that way but isn't its main purpose) - it's for temporary employment during economic downturns - people move out of the JG back into the private economy, as the economy recovers.

It will have public works programs alongside it, for work on infrastructue, R&D, and e.g. energy efficiency (retrofitting buildings etc.) work, while there is a climate emergency, as well.