nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Jimmy Garlic

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. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KyussB

If people could advance their quality of life and arrest our contribution to climate change at the same time, would they really turn that down just because it requires government involvement?

Whether averting worsening climate change requires cutting back our quality of life, versus advancing it, hinges largely upon how much we commit to resolving it immediately - the less we commit now, the greater the costs and cutbacks, later.

[Deleted User]

KyussB wrote: »

If people could advance their quality of life and arrest our contribution to climate change at the same time, would they really turn that down just because it requires government involvement?

Whether averting worsening climate change requires cutting back our quality of life, versus advancing it, hinges largely upon how much we commit to resolving it immediately - the less we commit now, the greater the costs and cutbacks, later.

agreed.

no more greta gimmickery and talking down to those that need convincing.

sell the benefits and the possibilities.

im not sure that the skillset is there, tbh

drunkmonkey

KyussB wrote: »

If people could advance their quality of life and arrest our contribution to climate change at the same time, would they really turn that down just because it requires government involvement?

That would be socialism. People don't want it. They want less government control, more money in their pockets.
Technology will help the future not Pascal and his carbon taxes.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Free solar panels = free energy = free money when excess is sold back to the grid.There's more energy hitting your home every day than you have a hope of using. The GND is significantly aimed at putting in wartime-level efforts to ensure everyone can take advantage of and benefit from that.

I have solar panels installed and without any GND bollloxolgy. They are very good but our climate means energy capture is dependant on suitable weather conditions and orientation - so no there is not always more than is required. That's not a function of the technology but a very real physical limit .

Professor Moriarty

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That would be socialism. People don't want it. They want less government control, more money in their pockets.
Technology will help the future not Pascal and his carbon taxes.

What technology?

KyussB

Ok, that's the first bit of cross-divide progress in a while.

On skillsets: The benefit of the GND, is that it isn't just a work project, it has training and R&D at its heart - because we don't have all of the necessary technologies, today - so it would be setting out (with a combined effort across continents) to rapidly develop tech needed to e.g. substitute rare earths needed for solar, in order to properly mass produce it for use on every structure - among much, much more.

On self sufficiency with solar: Most consumer solar that is installed, is about 4-5kw so far as I can see - which typically doesn't cover the full surface of the roof and such. A combined/hybrid PV + Thermal solar setup (the thermal is a free bonus almost - since it takes the solar energy the PV cells can't absorb), which covers not just the entire roof, but also the walls of a building - and coupled with storage (not just electric, but long term heat storage in an underground heat reservoir - charged by the solar thermal in Summer for Winter - which potentially a ground source heat pump can partially achieve) - all of this, can pretty much provide all of the energy needs of a home, but it needs some technological advancements still, to properly fit all the tech together.

A GND program which aims to rapidly solve the (mostly low hanging fruit) challenges for fitting the pieces together there, combined with mass producing all of that, and installing it all in peoples homes for free - that seems like a pretty good way to sell it, to me.

The necessary scale of that, and it being free, would unavoidably require the government doing it - so people would need to put ideological objections aside, for it (it's not particularly ideologically bothersome, imo - not unless your politics are very US-centric).

[Deleted User]

heh

i meant the skillset in selling it without the moral superiority complex

but in the spirit of the cross-divide progress, let's agree on the way forward.

but ..... greta must be jettisoned.

grettisoned

drunkmonkey

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What technology?

The glass battery for starters.

Professor Moriarty

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The glass battery for starters.

So we can ignore carbon pollution as long as we have glass batteries? When will they obviate the need for carbon taxes? Would you have a timescale?

KyussB

The way to view Greta, is just as a precursor to the solutions stage of things - she's been highlighting the problem and the urgency of it - now it's time for the solutions which, thankfully, are abundant.

So, the moralizing from Greta I can understand may get peoples backs up - but there's still value in it, in raising awareness and the profile of the issue, and in raising more heads demanding political/economic action to resolve the issue - and now that we have good solutions, she's helped prepare us for that next stage of things.

That next stage - the solutions stage - faces big ideological objections, big political opposition from vested interests, even fundamental opposition within e.g. parts of economic academia - that stuff can't be overcome, without people like Greta/AOC and all, generating the level of political support necessary, to overcome those other very powerful political/economic/business interests, opposed to them (things are still very nascent on Greta/etc.'s side - there are only a handful prominent/influential people at the fore of it, mostly).

Professor Moriarty

KyussB wrote: »

The way to view Greta, is just as a precursor to the solutions stage of things - she's been highlighting the problem and the urgency of it - now it's time for the solutions which, thankfully, are abundant.

So, the moralizing from Greta I can understand may get peoples backs up - but there's still value in it, in raising awareness and the profile of the issue, and in raising more heads demanding political/economic action to resolve the issue - and now that we have good solutions, she's helped prepare us for that next stage of things.

That next stage - the solutions stage - faces big ideological objections, big political opposition from vested interests, even fundamental opposition within e.g. parts of economic academia - that stuff can't be overcome, without people like Greta/AOC and all, generating the level of political support necessary, to overcome those other very powerful political/economic/business interests, opposed to them (things are still very nascent on Greta/etc.'s side - there are only a handful prominent/influential people at the fore of it, mostly).

Spot on.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The way to view Greta, is just as a precursor to the solutions stage of things - she's been highlighting the problem and the urgency of it - now it's time for the solutions which, thankfully, are abundant.

So, the moralizing from Greta I can understand may get peoples backs up - but there's still value in it, in raising awareness and the profile of the issue, and in raising more heads demanding political/economic action to resolve the issue - and now that we have good solutions, she's helped prepare us for that next stage of things.

That next stage - the solutions stage - faces big ideological objections, big political opposition from vested interests, even fundamental opposition within e.g. parts of economic academia - that stuff can't be overcome, without people like Greta/AOC and all, generating the level of political support necessary, to overcome those other very powerful political/economic/business interests, opposed to them (things are still very nascent on Greta/etc.'s side - there are only a handful prominent/influential people at the fore of it, mostly).

Gretas been having tantrums. As a kid that's possibly seen as cute by some and spoilt rich kid syndrome by the rest of the relatively sane universe. So no not a good means of persuasion tbh. Though I find the fact some appear to believe she has a role in softening up the easily persuaded fairly hilarious :pac:

The likes of greta and AOC will have more people running for the hills especially with what they are spouting has shag all to do with any science. AOC is flogging populist style politics in a bid to stay elected. So boil it down and we have politics versus politics. Not much changes eh?

easypazz

People need to realise that our pollution has potential to severely affect extremely poor people on other parts of the planet.

For example if our actions cause more extreme drought in Africa leading to death and famine we need to take responsibility for this.

gozunda

easypazz wrote: »

People need to realise that our pollution has potential to severely affect extremely poor people on other parts of the planet.For example if our actions cause more extreme drought in Africa leading to death and famine we need to take responsibility for this.

Pollution is not solely a function of developed countries - Increasing amounts of pollution from developing nations and countries like China has the potential to severely affect all other regions of the planet. For example - China is currently the single biggest emitter of Green House Gases globally. Per capita China exceeds the EU average for same. India and parts of the middle east are some of the biggest sources of water borne plastic waste in the world.

It is a fact that drought and famine have been a factor in African nations for many decades. Africa is already a net beneficiary of significant levels of aid. Unfortunately much of that aid does not reach those in need often due to corruption and inequality with regard to issues of governance of countries concerned.

If people are displaced or otherwise in Europe because of pollution from other countries should they seek to assign responsibility and seek redress?

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

should people not have kids

Which people?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Gretas been having tantrums. As a kid that's possibly seen as cute by some and spoilt rich kid syndrome by the rest of the relatively sane universe. So no not a good means of persuasion tbh. Though I find the fact some appear to believe she has a role in softening up the easily persuaded fairly hilarious :pac:

The likes of greta and AOC will have more people running for the hills especially with what they are spouting has shag all to do with any science. AOC is flogging populist style politics in a bid to stay elected. So boil it down and we have politics versus politics. Not much changes eh?

They're a lot closer to science than anything opposing them. This thread included.

AlekSmart

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Jesus wept.

Not a dry eye in Heaven....

Average life expectancy in Bangladesh 2018....71.1 years.

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/bangladesh-life-expectancy

Average Life Expectancy in Ireland 2018. .... 79.7 Years.

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/ireland-life-expectancy

So,with a little luck,going back to the future will solve many of our issues.....

We better get moving before them Bangla's get the notion of heading towards our standard ?

Wanderer78

AlekSmart wrote:

So,with a little luck,going back to the future will solve many of our issues.....

Say wha?

c montgomery

easypazz wrote: »

People need to realise that our pollution has potential to severely affect extremely poor people on other parts of the planet.

For example if our actions cause more extreme drought in Africa leading to death and famine we need to take responsibility for this.

Haha, ya right!

You sound like the kind of person who takes responsibility for others people's farts in an elevator.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

please dont project your insulting notions of my thoughts, its unnecessary and quite offensive as a habit.
i note that we now dont have to listen to greta, that people cared about the environment before greta, that greta is not the authoritative voice on any environmental issue, and that one can in fact care about the environment without, even now, agreeing with greta.

jesus but this is some ****in progress.
id invite you to just answer the question, tbh. the big one, about whether one should have kids when its such a multiplier to your carbon footprint? its a big question, as ive said. one really ought have an opinion on it consistent with, say, the amount of time one spends wagging one's fingers at people on the internet telling them to "listen to greta" (instruction now cancelled)

Well put. That idea seems to elude many who would choose to lecture others on the new order. Also it's true that if we ignore the issue of population - we may as well walk away now. Strange it seems to treated as a non issue atm ...

[Deleted User]

Akrasia wrote: »

Which people?

more progress!

which people do *you* think shouldnt have kids?

Hector Savage

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/climate-change-the-facts/

Great article, real eye opener here!

SaintLeibowitz

Hector Savage wrote: »

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/climate-change-the-facts/

Great article, real eye opener here!

Matt Ridley lol.

Professor Moriarty

Hector Savage wrote: »

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/climate-change-the-facts/

Great article, real eye opener here!

From the article. Note that this is notsatire. He actually means what he says.

Now if you argue that coal producers – like the one operating on my family’s land, so, yes, I declare an interest – should be paying recompense for the damage they have done the world, you must also admit that they can take into account any benefit they have done. It’s the net cost that counts. At the moment, it is mathematically indisputable that farmers owe coal producers a huge sum for supplying them with free CO2 fertiliser. The burning of fossil fuels has boosted farm yields.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hector Savage

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Matt Ridley lol.

Thought he was fairly respected myself...

SaintLeibowitz

Hector Savage wrote: »

Thought he was fairly respected myself...

That's hilarious

Hector Savage

OK, the cultists are here .... see you later...

SaintLeibowitz

Hector Savage wrote: »

OK, the cultists are here .... see you later...

Better luck next time. Thanks for playing.

[Deleted User]

moral of the story,

in matters of environmental science, dont take your cue from minors or miners

Bunny Colvin

I can't help but feel that the whole thing is a bit daft. A rich teenager sailing across the sea like a superhero. If her name was Mary O'Reilly it wouldn't have the same effect either.