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

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If it takes a gimmick, (a girl giving everyone stink eye) fine.

Matt, despite the countless accusations, the projection, the insults, the statements by kyuss a few nights back that he couldn't back up (but won't retract):

I can respect the above.

But people should be able to discuss the gimmick aspect and what the implications of it are (for the movement, in the short and long run; for how the campaign is run, and by whom; for the child involved; for what it says about those swallowing it so furiously that they attack any sceptics; etc) without the level of attack, deflection, derailing, projection etc etc in this thread.

Tell me how wrote: »

Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.

Discussion is happening. Finally.

it's incredible tbh.

why wouldn't you just go start a thread for the topic you want to discuss?

a: because what you want is for nobody to ask any questions about the little climate goddess.

the accusation that anyone else is the one deflecting is gobsmacking.

James Brown

If it takes a gimmick, (a girl giving everyone stink eye) fine.

Deleted User wrote: »

this thread is about what messenger is chosen to deliver what message.

it's not a thread to discuss climate change.

Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.

Discussion is happening. Finally.

Tell me how wrote: »

Its v telling that people don't want to discuss climate change but instead try to shoot the messenger using all sorts of nonsense to try to undermine the message.

Thankfully, it seems to be getting through, C4 are hosting a 1 hour debate tied in to the UK election tonight where the topic is solely the climate.

this thread is about what messenger is chosen to deliver what message.

it's not a thread to discuss climate change.

Deleted User wrote: »

its actually a thread about the highly questionable platforming of greta thunberg

that people who don't want this discussed keep trying to divert it into a discussion about climate change denialism, the sources of funding of any writing they disagree with, the imaginary number theory of government capital finance, the morality of people being allowed to disagree with them, and the certain success of collective socialist planned economies if only the denialistas could be crushed is cute.

but it doesnt change what this thread is about.

Its v telling that people don't want to discuss climate change but instead try to shoot the messenger using all sorts of nonsense to try to undermine the message.

Thankfully, it seems to be getting through, C4 are hosting a 1 hour debate tied in to the UK election tonight where the topic is solely the climate.

KyussB wrote: »

If your synonym of 'cost', is that the government has a fixed pot of money, and spending has a fixed numerical limit - that is wrong - the limit is hitting maximum GDP, it is not limited by an arbitrary numeric limit. There would be a 'cost' by spending past maximum GDP, not by spending past an arbitrary fixed monetary limit.

Isn't this essentially synonymous with quantitive easing where in this case, as opposed to what happened in the 2008 crash when the increased money supply was used to purchase the bad assets of the banks,liquidity is injected into the economy to fund government infrastructure projects whilst closely monitoring the costs of inflation.

If quantitative easing itself loses effectiveness, fiscal policy (government spending) may be used to further expand the money supply. In effect, quantitative easing can even blur the line between monetary and fiscal policy, if the assets purchased consist of long term government bonds that are being issued to finance counter-cyclical deficit spending.

KyussB wrote: »

If the discussion is about averting climate change - which it is....

its actually a thread about the highly questionable platforming of greta thunberg

that people who don't want this discussed keep trying to divert it into a discussion about climate change denialism, the sources of funding of any writing they disagree with, the imaginary number theory of government capital finance, the morality of people being allowed to disagree with them, and the certain success of collective socialist planned economies if only the denialistas could be crushed is cute.

but it doesnt change what this thread is about.

sorry man, i understood you perfectly well, there's really no need to keep repeating yourself. You just didn't make any sense- repeating it again won't help either, before you set off.

if you have to invent a three paragraph definition of what "cost" means in order to tell people why things don't "cost" anything, then people will tend to see through that- or do you find otherwise?

it's an interesting approach though.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you've derailed this thread to your hobbyhorse enough, but rest assured I'm au fait with the basics of wealth creation theory, future value of money concept, the arguments for capital investment from exchequer funding, relevance of the low rate on govt bonds for same, yadda, yadda, yadda

their relevance to this thread is nil

the basis for your belief that capital govt spending is to all intents and purposes cost-free is fantasy

listen though, why has greta thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

If your synonym of 'cost', is that it requires spending money - then no, it's not cost free, obviously.

If your synonym of 'cost', is that the government has a fixed pot of money, and spending has a fixed numerical limit - that is wrong - the limit is hitting maximum GDP, it is not limited by an arbitrary numeric limit. There would be a 'cost' by spending past maximum GDP, not by spending past an arbitrary fixed monetary limit.

If your synonym of 'cost', focuses on something 'bad' happening as a consequence of government spending - then that 'bad' thing, is not determined based on an arbitrary numeric limit - it is determined based on the social/environmental/etc. consequences of spending vs not spending - and from this point of view, the only cost is through not spending to act on ending our contribution to climate change.

If the discussion is about averting climate change - which it is... - and if government spending is arguably the best method for doing that, then it's perfectly relevant.

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

Listen though, why has Greta Thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

Good question,all the same....Out of nowhere...one girl on strike from school somewhere.

Something just isn't right here,but in the maelstrom of media concoctions,once we have the skeleton we can hang a lot more upon it.....

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-10-10/how-did-teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg-rise-fame-so-quickly

But Thunberg is not the first young person to take a stand against environmental injustice.

And many who came before have been Indigenous activists and activists of color.

“There are all these really tremendous activist leaders who are similarly positioned to Greta Thunberg, but who haven’t gotten the spotlight,” said Joe Curnow, an assistant professor at the University of Manitoba who’s been studying the youth climate movement for five years.

The US youth climate movement has many young women of color at the helm, including Jamie Margolin, co-founder of the Zero Hour movement, Isra Hirsi, executive director of the US Climate Strike, and countless others.

“So, I’m like, why Greta? And I think that has a lot to do with questions of race and racism,” Curnow said. “I think her whiteness is very much an asset for why the media, why governments, why the UN has been willing to feature her.”

The environmental movement, overall, has been criticized for being too white for a long time. The spotlight on Thunberg may be an opportunity to change that, argues longtime environmental justice activist Mustafa Santiago Ali, who spent years at the Environmental Protection Agency and is now with the National Wildlife Federation.

“I hope as much attention will be given to a number of kids of color who have been literally, not just standing on the front lines, but living in the front lines for decades now,” Ali said.

Thunberg has tried to share the spotlight. This week, she visited the Standing Rock Indian Reservation to show solidarity with Indigenous activists, and routinely mentions in speeches that those on the front lines of climate change are feeling its effects more acutely than her.

“It is something that comes up a lot, the fact that Greta is a white, [privileged] girl,” Bastida said. “But we are not resentful at all. We just are thankful that the movement has gotten to where it has needed to be for a long time.”

Greta's star will wane in time,the World will find something else to be concerned over,but as can be seen above,Greta may well simply find another topic to be motivated by...it's all quite odd really....odder and odder...

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you've derailed this thread to your hobbyhorse enough, but rest assured I'm au fait with the basics of wealth creation theory, future value of money concept, the arguments for capital investment from exchequer funding, relevance of the low rate on govt bonds for same, yadda, yadda, yadda

their relevance to this thread is nil

the basis for your belief that capital govt spending is to all intents and purposes cost-free is fantasy

listen though, why has greta thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

She hasn't been 'platformed'.
She hasn't 'performed show-trial level diatribes' to anyone.

Next.

I think you've derailed this thread to your hobbyhorse enough, but rest assured I'm au fait with the basics of wealth creation theory, future value of money concept, the arguments for capital investment from exchequer funding, relevance of the low rate on govt bonds for same, yadda, yadda, yadda

their relevance to this thread is nil

the basis for your belief that capital govt spending is to all intents and purposes cost-free is fantasy

listen though, why has greta thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

Deleted User wrote: »

mONeY IsnT ReAL!

Yea, that's why long-form posts are better than tweet-form, for some topics...having detailed every aspect of the argument in the long-form post, making such dismissals hard - unsurprisingly the TLDR/tweet-form post is chosen, to dismiss...

Do you think all money is physical cash or in commodity/gold form, sitting in a bank vault or something?

KyussB wrote: »

GND is clear, renewable infrastructure/R&D + living wage Job Guarantee. Ideological opponents unconvinceable.

No monetary 'cost' in terms of fixed pot of money, government pot limited by max GDP, isn't fixed.

Real cost is the environmental/social/etc. one of not acting.

mONeY IsnT ReAL!

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet.

The premise of the argument put forward in the OP seems to centered on the text in bold. It could be interpreted that the opinion of the OP is that the action of a 16 year old girl is designed to pressurize world leaders to socially engineer and tax a certain section of the human population,although it might be construed that her actions are solely directed at dwarfs, the result of which will lead to their demise.

Presumably the mechanisms,although not explicitly referenced,that bring about this dystopian future, are a reference to market-based incentives,such as carbon tax plans or cap and trade and also more broad based plans such as the Green New Deal, which while not yet fully formed, promises jobs and economic security, as part of a drive to get greenhouse gas emissions to net zero and organizations such as the 'United States Climate Alliance' http://www.usclimatealliance.org/.

The arguments against these proposals seem to range from their ineffectiveness,their undesirability (sometimes attributed to an unspecified fear of being forced into a communist nightmare) 6034073

to an opinion that no such action is required because the threat of climate change is grossly exaggerated and in some people's opinion not related anyway to human activity.

Leaving aside the position that no action is required it would be interesting to hear from people who recognize that action is required but don't consider that current proposals are desirable,for whatever reason,and what proposals they would consider more effective and desirable.

:mad:

KyussB wrote: »

GND is clear, renewable infrastructure/R&D + living wage Job Guarantee. Ideological opponents unconvinceable.

No monetary 'cost' in terms of fixed pot of money, government pot limited by max GDP, isn't fixed.

Real cost is the environmental/social/etc. one of not acting.

Damn right the government's pot should be limited until they fix the economy. Ordinary honest working Joe ain't got no time for smoking pot when there's real work to be done. Lynch the lot of them.

AlekSmart

gozunda wrote: »

SNIP
And get out of here with 'the message greta is trying to communicate'. She's a teenager - apparently prone to tantruns and exaggeration and getting her own way. And yet hilariously we have those who would hold her up as shining light. But you know that already.

Neither holding the tenets of the new religion of GND or believing that saint greta is the new guru bringing the message of salvation to the masses are necessary for logical scrutiny.
SNIP

In the era of mass instant communication,every message needs it's Greta.

Those who make,manage and manipulate any given message,will all compete to get their figurehead in place,and with Greta Thunberg they have struck gold.

What all of this entails for Greta herself,as a person,is still undecided,but it's fair to speculate on whether Climate Change alone would be her chosen issue or in it's absence which other apocalyptic human carry-on would she have been allocated.

Greta,like avery other member of our species,will age,mature and perhaps even alter her opinions on a vast number of issues,it's what makes Humanity...well...Human ?

By the time Greta gets to 40,she may have met a partner who's not as focused on cataclysmic events as she.
Her parents,or close influencers may well pass-on and/or her followers may thin out.
Who knows,she may develop a liking for a Koenigsegg.

What way her personal development is being compromised in all of this remains open to conjecture,but as it appears to fit in with her parents life choices,I have to accept she's also cool with it.

Now,...i DO like the look of that Koenigsegg.....http://www.topcarrating.com/power.php?brand_id=123

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Could you condense that into a tweet with an emoticon attached?

GND is clear, renewable infrastructure/R&D + living wage Job Guarantee. Ideological opponents unconvinceable.

No monetary 'cost' in terms of fixed pot of money, government pot limited by max GDP, isn't fixed.

Real cost is the environmental/social/etc. one of not acting.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

He doesn't have one. And yet is trying to undermine the message Greta is trying to communicate. Rinse and repeat for many naysayers.At least he's no longer suggesting there isn't an issue like earlier in the thread.

Does everyone who points out that a proposal or political stance does not stand up to scrutiny have to provide a diametric position for you? Why is that? That very odd position not only assumes a fallacy of opposition but where anyone points out that something lacks validity, you bizarrely believe - it is necessary to come up with an alternative. News for you - it doesn't.

And get out of here with 'the message greta is trying to communicate'. She's a teenager - apparently prone to tantruns and exaggeration and getting her own way. And yet hilariously we have those who would hold her up as shining light. But you know that already.

And interestingly my position on the issue you allude to above has not changed btw. So less of the old daft personalisations there thanks.

Akrasia wrote: »

Now that you’ve told us what the solution isn’t, please tell us your own brilliant idea to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere within the next couple of decades?

I’m genuinely fascinated to hear your insights

He doesn't have one. And yet is trying to undermine the message Greta is trying to communicate. Rinse and repeat for many naysayers.

At least he's no longer suggesting there isn't an issue like earlier in the thread.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

That's the thing Tell me how - logic certainly dictates that evaluating such politicised solutions requires critical thinking - which funnily enough is neither 'prejudiced' nor being 'narrow minded' - rather that involves being the exact opposite of both.

But then not everyone applies logic do they when following such populist ideologies? And no I have no rosy ideas about politics and politicians btw. Policies may indeed be designed to appeal to the electorate with the aim of putting bums on seats - but hey what's new eh?. Whatever the solution is - its certainly not the crap which is the 'Green New Deal' ...

Now that you’ve told us what the solution isn’t, please tell us your own brilliant idea to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere within the next couple of decades?

I’m genuinely fascinated to hear your insights

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You just need to be either extremely prejudiced or narrow minded.Surprise surprise, some have an issue with political parties trying to develop policies which will appeal to the electorate and which aim to be for the betterment of society.
What position are you currently holding Gozunda? There is not issue with the climate which needs action in how humans are influencing it? Or, there is an issue but we can get out of it by doing the exact same things we have been doing already?

That's the thing Tell me how - logic certainly dictates that evaluating such politicised solutions requires critical thinking - which funnily enough is neither 'prejudiced' nor being 'narrow minded' - rather that involves being the exact opposite of both.

But then not everyone applies logic do they when following such populist ideologies? And no I have no rosy ideas about politics and politicians btw. Policies may indeed be designed to appeal to the electorate with the aim of putting bums on seats - but hey what's new eh?. Whatever the solution is - its certainly not the crap which is the 'Green New Deal' ...

Scenarios to help business navigate climate impacts

https://www.forumforthefuture.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=3860097b-a8e0-435d-bde8-ea5f53aca5ee

The above report was produced by Sustainability Cell of the Aditya Birla Group in November 2018.Aditya Birla Group is an Indian multinational conglomerate, headquartered in Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. It states that

the challenge of staying below 2°C should not be underestimated

and

for those looking to lead businesses that can be sustained in the long run, it is clear the business case exists only for action to stay below 2°C and successfully operate within this limit

.

It claims to

synthesise the leading scientific thinking on the physical impacts of climate change by 2040, and uses scenarios to explore the many possible levers that will push or pull us into a below two degree trajectory

.

It uses a baseline based on what science says is likely to have happened by 2040 and physical impacts of previous emissions already ‘baked into’ the system and the transition levers that must be pulled to reduce and control emissions to a below 2°C trajectory. It then outlines 4 scenarios describing what the business operating context could look like in 2040. The four scenarios are summarized as follows:

1.Efficiency First - is a precarious globalized house of cards where constant and often risky technological innovation, motivated by high carbon prices,is just keeping us on a <2°C trajectory.
2.Redefining Progress - is a digitally connected, yet highly localised world where priorities in many countries have shifted from rapid growth to healthier growth reflecting the changing aspirations of next generation leaders.
3.New Protectionism - is a splintered world of protectionist blocs, where tackling climate change is a matter of national security. Cultures continue to fragment along religious, values and ethnic lines.
4.Service Transformation - is experience-led. Service-based living,the mainstreaming of access over ownership, has happened quickly, and globally applied, individual carbon budgets are traded and tracked.

My bet would be on 3.

I would be interested to find out how this correlates with the action proposed by the GND. It is projected that Greta Thunberg will be the CEO of the company by 2033 although this is not included in the report and was perhaps fabricated by an unknown source.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Oh do give that type of extreme ideological promotion a break lol. It's more than transparent that the green deal in its present format is a child of the democratic party in the US in a bid to get back into power. In the UK it has been - surprise surprise - adopted by the UK socialist party. It even has radicalised youth wing for fek sake!. And is about as about as political as it gets. Even the most summary reading shows that it is a crock of crap. But there you go. Unlike the rather daft comparison with something like smallpox - medical and other professionals are certainly not in unison about supporting this type of ****e. For sure the Green new deal' is composed of 'deliberate misinformation and obfuscation'. You dont need to be a genius to figure any of that out tbh.

All climate scientists of any worth agree that changes need to be made to reduce GHGs urgently. This requires investment. Just like smallpox would never have been eradicated without global concerted action, climate change will not be addressed without concerted global action to decarbonise

This requires governments and global institutions to make funds and incentives available for these investments to take place

Akrasia

is_that_so wrote: »

The New Green Deal is far too vague in detail and suffers from that "one plan to fit all" belief. The criticisms of it are quite valid, absolutely no clear overall cost and by extension no cost to voters, far too narrowly focused and with some impossible timelines. As for politics, the nod to FDR bit didn't alert you to what they are up to? Until the GOP returns anywhere towards some form of bilateralism, it's not going anywhere. Incidentally, the sun is likely take care of when that "2c" kicks in, over the next two sun cycles, with some cooling of its own.

There is no single “the green new deal” proposal. What it represents is a commitment to make the radical investment in infrastructure required to rapidly decarbonise and invest in the skills and technology to enable the 22nd century global economy to thrive in harmony with a sustainable biosphere. It requires huge Upfront investment but it is extremely cheap compared with the devastating long term costs if we let the global climate spiral out of control

KyussB wrote: »

The GND has a very clear set of programs it puts forward - principally the New Deal style infrastructural/redevelopment projects and R&D for advancing tech for renewables and eliminating carbon emissions, coupled with policies like the Job Guarantee and associated retraining programs, which (only part of its purpose) ensures that anyone in an industry affected by the necessary changes, will have a deccent living wage job and future prospects in the private industry again when they leave the JG.

There is no level of specificness that will ever satisfy someone who opposes the GND purely for political/ideological reasons - yet the details and major policies it does put forward, are pretty undebatably guaranteed to increase efforts at fighting climate change immensely (by orders of magnitude at least).

The cost is in not undertaking the GND, because the effects on the environment and the planet, are going to be immensely costly to us all, beyond calculation - far greater in scale than the mere monetary 'cost' of the GND.

The synonym of 'cost' with the implied meaning, of money spent and leaving the remaining pot smaller, doesn't apply to governments, because that's not how government finances work - the 'pot' of available money can be made to expand as much as the government needs to keep GDP at full potential (without having to create a cost in the private sector - as balanced budgets almost never happen) - the synonym of 'cost' that applies to government, is simply that which notes money has been spent, with zero said about the remaining availability of money.

This means that when you want to talk about the positives and negatives of cost in terms of government policy - you focus on the social cost, physical/infrastructural cost, environmental cost, the cost of an overheating economy etc. etc. - focusing on mere monetary numbers doesn't make any sense in this regard, it's actually completely backwards as suddenly allowing an actual/real environmental cost, becomes a monetary 'virtue', by avoiding the 'cost' of spending that money - even when in practical terms, the 'pot' the government spends from is only limited when maximum GDP output is reached, not by some arbitrary monetary limit.

Thinking purely in monetary terms is a completely fucking backwards way of understanding government finances, obscuring the true/real/actual/physical/social/etc. costs of things - which, unfortunately, is how most of the public still views things - and is one of the major things that needs to change in public perception.

Could you condense that into a tweet with an emoticon attached?

is_that_so wrote: »

The New Green Deal is far too vague in detail and suffers from that "one plan to fit all" belief. The criticisms of it are quite valid, absolutely no clear overall cost and by extension no cost to voters, far too narrowly focused and with some impossible timelines. As for politics, the nod to FDR bit didn't alert you to what they are up to? Until the GOP returns anywhere towards some form of bilateralism, it's not going anywhere. Incidentally, the sun is likely take care of when that "2c" kicks in, over the next two sun cycles, with some cooling of its own.

The GND has a very clear set of programs it puts forward - principally the New Deal style infrastructural/redevelopment projects and R&D for advancing tech for renewables and eliminating carbon emissions, coupled with policies like the Job Guarantee and associated retraining programs, which (only part of its purpose) ensures that anyone in an industry affected by the necessary changes, will have a deccent living wage job and future prospects in the private industry again when they leave the JG.

There is no level of specificness that will ever satisfy someone who opposes the GND purely for political/ideological reasons - yet the details and major policies it does put forward, are pretty undebatably guaranteed to increase efforts at fighting climate change immensely (by orders of magnitude at least).

The cost is in not undertaking the GND, because the effects on the environment and the planet, are going to be immensely costly to us all, beyond calculation - far greater in scale than the mere monetary 'cost' of the GND.

The synonym of 'cost' with the implied meaning, of money spent and leaving the remaining pot smaller, doesn't apply to governments, because that's not how government finances work - the 'pot' of available money can be made to expand as much as the government needs to keep GDP at full potential (without having to create a cost in the private sector - as balanced budgets almost never happen) - the synonym of 'cost' that applies to government, is simply that which notes money has been spent, with zero said about the remaining availability of money.

This means that when you want to talk about the positives and negatives of cost in terms of government policy - you focus on the social cost, physical/infrastructural cost, environmental cost, the cost of an overheating economy etc. etc. - focusing on mere monetary numbers doesn't make any sense in this regard, it's actually completely backwards as suddenly allowing an actual/real environmental cost, becomes a monetary 'virtue', by avoiding the 'cost' of spending that money - even when in practical terms, the 'pot' the government spends from is only limited when maximum GDP output is reached, not by some arbitrary monetary limit.

Thinking purely in monetary terms is a completely fucking backwards way of understanding government finances, obscuring the true/real/actual/physical/social/etc. costs of things - which, unfortunately, is how most of the public still views things - and is one of the major things that needs to change in public perception.

Tell me how wrote: »

Surprise surprise, some have an issue with political parties trying to develop policies which will appeal to the electorate and which aim to be for the betterment of society.

Yes but they're socialist policies and as everybody knows,even if they're not really sure what socialism is, that's just bad. Can't you understand that? Why can't you be happy with our Utopian society and ignore those bad scientists and their pesky reports trying to influence our nice cozy political orthodoxy just so they can fleece us for our money to buy more Bunsen burners. Can you just stop with all this political stuff and focus on the real issue ..why isn't Greta at school learning how to speculate on the financial markets. At least that way she could afford her own yacht and wouldn't be so upset when she turns up at the UN next time.