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

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

lol at the answer to a population five times what it should be being a *shrug* "what you gonna do?"

look, if you cannot face the actual issue you have no business in here getting wound up that people arent convinced about your propaganda angel

Can you even move half a step towards a logical train of thought or is that too much to hope for?

Same question for you so? How do you reduce the population? How long will it take? Do you see any issues with this?

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you even move half a step towards a logical train of thought or is that too much to hope for?

Same question for you so? How do you reduce the population? How long will it take? Do you see any issues with this?

are you capable of discussing this without ad-hom?

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

Is it not disincentivised already given the costs for childcare and actually raising a child? Do you think a significant proportion of the population are having children because of the children's allowance?

Would removing children's allowance completely not be seen as class warfare? Would that not be targeting a specific section of society in an unfair way.

Again, you see how people react when being told they have to consider changing their diet and modes of transport but you think reducing the number of children being born, through some governmental order would stand a chance?

No. It would be targeting all of society, the same way the plastic bag levy did. What happened there? 99% reduction in the consumption of plastic bags.

Timmaay

https://youtu.be/OwII-dwh-bk The single most important thing with population control is reducing child mortality rates in developing countries. Thankfully the world overall has make massive strides in this across the last 50yrs or so, and as a result families tend to only be 2 children. Religion is a big barrier to reducing family sizes, especially in the likes of predominantly Catholic countries like Nigeria, where access to contraception is discouraged, alongside Islamic countries where women's education levels and rights in general are behind where they should be (and as a direct result they tend to have more babies!).

Any sort of forced 1 child policies will lead to serious social issues, like China tried and had to abandon before.

Micky 32

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Ah so you are trolling... time to use the ignore function.

I actually really think there is no trolling going on here. I think it’s just bad case of being out of touch with the real world outside Dublin.

Plumbthedepths

Micky 32 wrote: »

I actually really think there is no trolling going on here. I think it’s just bad case of being out of touch with the real world outside Dublin.

Trolling or ignorance still worthy of the ignore function.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Also do people living rurally think everyone born there should build a one off house, and everyone should get a car at age 17? I mean this kind of seems unsustainable to me in the long run?

They don't. Many people live with their parents. But yeah lots of different living circumstances - I believe you have described having your own house and your parents house being vacant as they live in Spain? But no certainly not 'everyone' gets a car in rural areas come their 17th birthday. Many teenagers are put on their parents insurance and allowed to drive the family car in preparation of their driving test. I imagine the exact same thing which happens in urban areas. Some may get the keys of a cheap runaround but certainly not all by any stretch of the imagination.

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I love cycling to work, and love where I live, I can walk to the dart or the pub in less than 10 mins, what more could I ask for. You can hear a pin drop around here at night too.

Fabulous, glad you found your groove, that's fantastic. Now how about accepting the fact that everyone doesn't want to emulate how you live your life.

Micky 32

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Fabulous, glad you found your groove, that's fantastic. Now how about accepting the fact that everyone doesn't want to emulate how you live your life.

He thinks that just because he has no dependence on fossil fuels sod everyone else i’m alright Jack.

gozunda

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nothing light-hearted about using such a derogatory term to describe your neighbours. Then again I guess I have a different sense of humour and neighbours I enjoy the pleasure of living near.

And agreed nothing in that odd description of 'light hearted' in having a go at the neigbours . But hey there we are ...

As for a bit of tongue I cheek humour here's a Christmas jumper to go with the thread ...

https://www.popjumpers.co.uk/product/greta-thunberg-how-dare-you/?attribute_colour=Bottle+Green&attribute_size=Medium

Professor Moriarty

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

No. It would be targeting all of society, the same way the plastic bag levy did. What happened there? 99% reduction in the consumption of plastic bags.

So a stringent and blanket tax on anything that emits carbon? Sounds good.

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So a stringent and blanket tax on anything that emits carbon? Sounds good.

I dont think the poster was referring to carbon. But no matter.

Interesting proposal though for a 'blanket tax on anything that emits carbon'

It has been estimated that:

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change/

Obviously the population figures are a little out of date but you could be on to a winner there - with the idea of taxing people for breathing. I presume that would have an automatic knock on effect with regard to population control as families would seek to minimise the number of children and their emissions...

KyussB

Carbon emissions from breathing are part of a closed cycle - nearly everything we eat comes from photosynthesis i.e. sequestered carbon.

KyussB

Instead of aiming for an entire societal change, why don't we first just focus on the fact that we aren't doing anything at a big enough scale at present, about the issue?

Lets just start with the Green New Deal style economic retrofitting and R&D. That presents fairly unambiguous positive benefits - without requiring decimation of standards of living, or other more drastic stuff.

Degrowth and decimation of standards of living are a losing argument, in terms of persuasiveness, anyway - so ditch them and focus on GND style efficiency improvements, to get carbon emissions down and eventually reversing.

Frequent air travel, widespread car use and commuting, increasing consumerism, continually increasing comfort/luxuries and quality of live, continually increasing population - none of this stuff is a climate change problem, if you retrofit the economy and push the R&D, to make this carbon neutral - which is most definitely doable, if it is made a priority and the necessary scale of effort put into it.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Carbon emissions from breathing are part of a closed cycle - nearly everything we eat comes from photosynthesis i.e. sequestered carbon.

Yeah I know that. Try explaining that to people who keep going on about cattle :rolleyes:

But hey maybe taxing people for breathing might keep the global population down. Wha ya think?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Instead of aiming for an entire societal change, why don't we first just focus on the fact that we aren't doing anything at a big enough scale at present, about the issue?

Lets just start with the Green New Deal style economic retrofitting and R&D. That presents fairly unambiguous positive benefits - without requiring decimation of standards of living, or other more drastic stuff.

Degrowth and decimation of standards of living are a losing argument, in terms of persuasiveness, anyway - so ditch them and focus on GND style efficiency improvements, to get carbon emissions down and eventually reversing.

Frequent air travel, widespread car use and commuting, increasing consumerism, continually increasing comfort/luxuries and quality of live, continually increasing population - none of this stuff is a climate change problem, if you retrofit the economy and push the R&D, to make this carbon neutral - which is most definitely doable, if it is made a priority and the necessary scale of effort put into it.

No we've endlessly gone over that GND stuff tbh. Overpopulation is one of the major drivers of climate change. It needs to be at least discussed by the powers that be. At the moment it's the elephant in the room - taking a very large smelly dump and the that ****e is going just going to get bigger and bigger for at least another century. The estimate is that the human population will almost double around the year 2100. That's going to make our present problems look like peanuts.

weisses

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I know that. Try explaining that to people who keep going on about cattle :rolleyes:

But hey maybe taxing people for breathing might keep the global population down. Wha ya think?

Do you include methane in your carbon cycle ?

[Deleted User]

i think it is worth pointing out, again, that dismissing overpopulation as something "people aren't going to engage with so why bother" while on the other hand expecting people in Ireland/Europe/wherever to vote for or support a significant decrease in their living conditions is a profoundly difficult position to resolve.

Its not that we hate the environment.

Its not that we cant see theres a problem to be solved.

its that they can see industry, other countries and the overall population making the situation worse and worse and worse, and by the facts of human nature (which you have already appreciated by your response to "people wont stop procreating regardless of the consequences") you are not going to convince too many to volunteer to bear the overall consequences.

im attempting to step back from the truculence that has characterised this thread, but the above is offered as, again, a serious point.

and it ties back to greta, an initiative designed purely to put in place an unimpeachable, inarguable figurehead to browbeat the masses.

and its entirely relevant to ask and to keep asking who got her to the UN, and why.

gozunda

weisses wrote: »

Do you include methane in your carbon cycle ?

Well we were talking about carbon. I reckon though you haven't heard the good news then no?

New science, by a global team of IPCC researchers based at Oxford University, shows categorically that methane from Britain's ruminants is not causing global warming – instead ruminants provide a viable pathway to net zero emissions from UK agriculture by 2030.

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/blog-article/ruminant-agriculture-can-help-us-deliver-net-zero-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3diwroAtnVtYrYCLNSoA0OwwqLKcOdpp3HQbI3GbRn3NBP599bC6JvBbY

Fr_Dougal

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I know that. Try explaining that to people who keep going on about cattle :rolleyes:

But hey maybe taxing people for breathing might keep the global population down. Wha ya think?

Methane from cattle indirectly takes carbon emissions through what they eat, and then amplifies those emissions - methane is between 30-84 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, depending on the time period you look at.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

No we've endlessly gone over that GND stuff tbh. Overpopulation is one of the major drivers of climate change. It needs to be at least discussed by the powers that be. At the moment it's the elephant in the room - taking a very large smelly dump and the that ****e is going just going to get bigger and bigger for at least another century. The estimate is that the human population will almost double around the year 2100. That's going to make our present problems look like peanuts.

A GND which pushes us towards a closed-cycle carbon economy solves the population problem.

The GND has been gone over a good bit - but the objections to it boil down solely to ideological objections - and even those objections don't fit, because the GND can easily be undertaken to promote capitalistic goals - in fact, it's the very best chance Capitalism has, of overcoming the threat climate change poses to its very existence.

So - to put it particularly bluntly/crudely - we're not going to stop people fucking and producing babies, that is the least realistic idea of all - we as a species are capable of being very resourceful/intelligent, and we are more than capable of arresting our contributiion to climate change, while maintaining our rate of social/economic/technological/etc. progress - but only if we make that our priority, which presently, we are not making our priority.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Well we were talking about carbon. I reckon though you haven't heard the good news then no?

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/blog-article/ruminant-agriculture-can-help-us-deliver-net-zero-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3diwroAtnVtYrYCLNSoA0OwwqLKcOdpp3HQbI3GbRn3NBP599bC6JvBbY

Both CO2 and Methane have a limited lifespan in the atmosphere - Methane is about 9-10 years, CO2 is about 100 years.

Methane is in the atmosphere 10x less an amount of time as CO2 - but is between 30-84x as bad as CO2, in terms of being a greenhouse gas - meaning that over both their respective lifetimes, methane is way more potent than CO2.

This is why you don't pick your research, from a source that has a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion - i.e. a source that receives funding from agricultural bodies, who have a financial interest in downplaying the contribution of methane, as a greenhouse gas.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Both CO2 and Methane have a limited lifespan in the atmosphere - Methane is about 9-10 years, CO2 is about 100 years.Methane is in the atmosphere 10x less an amount of time as CO2 - but is between 30-84x as bad as CO2, in terms of being a greenhouse gas - meaning that over both their respective lifetimes, methane is way more potent than CO2.This is why you don't pick your research, from a source that has a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion - i.e. a source that receives funding from agricultural bodies, who have a financial interest in downplaying the contribution of methane, as a greenhouse gas.

Ah fek off with that type of rubbish (which funnily enough appears to be the position on any point you disagree with!). Yes I know the science of methane and its role in the atmosphere. It's an area in which I am qualified. But yeah we can all copy and paste. Thus is new reseach and the findings are robust. Just to reiterate the research was conducted by IPCC researchers based in Oxford as already detailed. If you dont like their findings then perhaps you should point that out to the same IPCC scientists who you believe "have "a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion". :rolleyes:

Clearly didn't either read the findings as were reported and linked by the BVA or given the benefit of the doubt perhaps didnt understand them. But no matter.

Jesus but there's ****e in this thread

SaintLeibowitz

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Yawn. This as already been done to that. Your man has featured on BBC, Time magazine, Forbes etc...

Funny thing... He's quite the fan of Greta.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Ah fek off with that type of rubbish (which funnily enough appears to be the position on any point you disagree with!). Yes I know the science of methane and its role in the atmosphere. It's an area in which I am qualified. But yeah we can all copy and paste. Thus is new reseach and the findings are robust. Just to reiterate the research was conducted by IPCC researchers based in Oxford as already detailed. If you dont like their findings then perhaps you should point that out to the same IPCC scientists who you believe "have "a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion". :rolleyes:

Clearly didn't either read the findings as were reported and linked by the BVA or given the benefit of the doubt perhaps didnt understand them. But no matter.

Jesus but there's ****e in this thread

That's not what the IPCC researchers say - that's what the British Veterinary Assocation say (the guys with a financial interest in playing down methane emissions...) - and they are erroneously citing the climate scientists as taking the same position, when they don't (the scientists take the some position, as what I cited).

Read your sources properly.

If you're such a 'skeptic', then why the fuck aren't you remotely skeptical of sources having a financial interest in the conclusons they draw?

tonycascarino

Personally I have absolutely no interest in being lectured by a spoiled 16 year old about environmental issues or any issue in fact. She has zero qualifications, zero life experience and yet there are idiots out there making her out to be a messiah. She is about as useful as throwing a jam sandwich to a drowning rabbit.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

That's not what the IPCC researchers say - that's what the British Veterinary Assocation say (the guys with a financial interest in playing down methane emissions...) - and they are erroneously citing the climate scientists as taking the same position, when they don't (the scientists take the some position, as what I cited).Read your sources properly.If you're such a 'skeptic', then why the fuck aren't you remotely skeptical of sources having a financial interest in the conclusons they draw?

Lol , yes the reported findings of the research undertaken by the IPCC scientists in Oxford support that methane emissions from livestock are not contributing to climate change when all of data is included. The findings are provided in the links included. And as detailed the science is robust. Your personal and unqualified take on the article is in error btw. I'm unsure how a personal (and If you dont mind I would say biased) opinion is somehow more relevant than professionals? The BVA are simply reporting the findings of the research. Sorry if that doesn't suit the agenda - but there we go.

This from the Oxford review document linked in that article

Summary

The conventional Global Warming Potential (GWP) can be misleading when applied to methane emissions, particularly when these are being reduced. A revised usage of GWP, denoted GWP*, which uses the same metric values interpreted in a new way, provides a more accurate indication
of the impact of short-lived pollutants on global temperature.
Of particular importance for ruminant livestock farming are the following observations:

• Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant
methane emissions cause little additional warming...

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Climate-metrics-for-ruminant-livestock.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwja1d26op_mAhVHXhUIHbLlCw4QFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0G0Eso8QVPNcIyq_lLKH2Y

Maybe you could explain why your comments constantly attack any sources you don't agree with - but universaly fail to give any sources whatsoever for the non stop promotion of the usual GND verbage. Odd no?

Anyway here again is the report on the most recent reseach on this issue.

New science, by a global team of IPCC researchers based at Oxford University, shows categorically that methane from Britain's ruminants is not causing global warming – instead ruminants provide a viable pathway to net zero emissions from UK agriculture by 2030.

KyussB

You deliberately stopped at the first bullet point, to misrepresent the research - the same as the BVA did - and you're engaging in selective interpretation of what it says:

Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant methane emissions cause little additional warming. In contrast, every tonne of CO2 emitted causes approximately the same amount of warming whenever it occurs.
Gradually declining methane emissions of 10% over 30 years, equivalent to halving over about 200 years (e.g. through efficiency savings), cause no additional warming.
Faster reductions in methane emissions lead to cooling, presenting an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions, although net emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide still ultimately need to be reduced to zero to stabilize global temperatures.
Increasing methane emissions cause very substantial warming, equivalent to very large emissions of CO2, but only while those increases are occurring.

TLDR - no, you can't keep belching out an increasing rate of methane, without that significantly contributing to global warming - that directly contradicts the actual science linked, which the BVA deliberately reinterpreted as stating the opposite.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You deliberately stopped at the first bullet point, to misrepresent the research - the same as the BVA did - and you're engaging in selective interpretation of what it says:

Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant methane emissions cause little[ additional warming. In contrast, every tonne of CO2 emitted causes approximately the same amount of warming whenever it occurs.

Gradually declining methane emissions of 10% over 30 years, equivalent to halving over about 200 years (e.g. through efficiency savings), cause no additional warming

Faster reductions in methane emissions lead to cooling, presenting an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions, although net emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide still ultimately need to be reduced to zero to stabilize global temperatures.

Increasing methane emissions cause very substantial warming, equivalent to very large emissions of CO2, but only while those increases are occurring.

TLDR - no, you can't keep belching out an increasing rate of methane, without that significantly contributing to global warming - that directly contradicts the actual science linked, which the BVA deliberately reinterpreted as stating the opposite.

Indeed TDLR! Lol.

I presume you followed the link provided? Good. The following paragraphs were indicated thus (...) as per standard notation and linked funnily enough. They also support the research and also make additional findings. The fact that you do not understand the research is clear. And no you can't pull bits out of those individual paragraphs to try and come up with your own viewpoint.

To reiterate and keep it simple (as I understand you do not have any experience or knowledge in this field) - the new findings clearly show that extensively reared livestock systems such as we have in the UK and in Ireland are not 'belching out an increasing rate of methane' (sic) rather they are part of an existing cycle and also provide a means to absorb additional emissions in that they also provide present an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions etc. It is also strongly noted that increases in emissions cause warming only whilst those emissions are increasing. The key finding being that reseach shows that "Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred". In the case of cattle for example this is when cattle were first farmed and because of that "constant methane emissions cause little additional warming".

Quite incredible that you believe fully qualified professionals take second place to your personal opinion and evidently flawed interpretation. But hey doesn't really matter - I'll stick with the science thanks.