We need rationing and wartime style restrictions..

Peregrine · 31-12-2019 12:43AM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You’re right, and there’s only one way to do it. Less people=Less consumption.

It’s a scientific fact.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_313704365

Only one way to do it? No and that's the worst way to do it. It lacks any awareness of the problem beyond a headline.

People don't consume equally.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

When consumption is the issue, you cut consumption. Not population. Cutting population is a pathetic response trying to spread the burden equally when the burden itself was created highly unequally.

KWAG2019 · 31-12-2019 12:44AM

An illustration of the bull**** about change; when it’s the institutions that need change they are expert at shifting the debate to the individual level. I heard Brendan Comiskey challenged publicly about the church in the early 80’s and his line was “DONT ask about how the institutions can change, ask about how you can change”. Utter bull****. And you’ll see it here and elsewhere. It’s the CORPORATIONS STUPID.

mzungu · 31-12-2019 12:45AM

Part of the problem is changing the public mindset away from consumerism. The governments plan to get 1 million electric cars on the road by 2030 is all well and good, but if people end up changing electric cars as often as they do with petrol and diesel then we are back at square A. For eg. raw materials like cobalt used for electric car batteries are still attained by some poor kid for less than a euro a day in the DRC. This corporate "business model" will still remain no matter what kind of car you are driving. Is there any use in patting oneself on the back for driving an electric car and saving the planet when it is still built off the back of exploitation in the southern hemisphere?

In addition, there is also the obvious environmental cost of mining for these raw materials. There are no easy answers, but even the current crop of lithium-ion batteries produced in China, South Korea and Japan were dependent on the use of fossil fuels. At present, those batteries are forecasted to be discarded by 2030, but with few options put on the table for recycling and reuse at this moment in time.

The problem is that the consumerist ideology is being touted as part of the solution, but we really need to look outside that. If the habits of the people don't change, then any measures that are taken will end up being cosmetic.

Beasty · 31-12-2019 12:46AM

KWAG2019 wrote: »

The huge corporations, their shareholders are the enemies of everyone’s future. Read the article. And lobbyists should be severely restricted to publicly recorded access to legislators.

Take them all out and see what happens to your pension funds

The problem is it's now a global economy, a global marketplace. Everything is so intertwined that tweaking one part will probably have unexpected consequences on another

And to be clear, yes huge corporations drive economic growth. They also drive global efficiencies. They are likely to be a major part of any "solution"

And let's not forget governments and their race to make their countries economic leaders, or in some cases wanting to catch up with others. It becomes a vicious cycle and is at a stage now where it can only be tempered by global actions. Unfortunately the required solutions will take much longer then the typical lifespan of any government to deal with, making it a complete disincentive to act

Harry Palmr · 31-12-2019 12:52AM

Mark Carney (outgoing Bank of England guv'ner) has implored big business to start to decarbon now rather than take a much bigger hit later as assets are rendered worth less or worthless. It feels like big money esp wealth funds and insurance are the secret and so far largely unused weapons in this area. If they start to dictate terms to borrowers and the insured things could move with some greater speed.

Dr. Bre · 31-12-2019 12:53AM

Easiest way is to reduce population. Less people less demand . Now let’s hope they don’t start with me first ...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-12-2019 12:54AM

Not until we are totally ****ed will some people realise that, **** - maybe the lunatics were actualyl right.

c montgomery · 31-12-2019 12:59AM

mzungu wrote: »

Part of the problem is changing the public mindset away from consumerism. The governments plan to get 1 million electric cars on the road by 2030 is all well and good, but if people end up changing electric cars as often as they do with petrol and diesel then we are back at square A. For eg. raw materials like cobalt used for electric car batteries are still attained by some poor kid for less than a euro a day in the DRC. This corporate "business model" will still remain no matter what kind of car you are driving. Is there any use in patting oneself on the back for driving an electric car and saving the planet when it is still built off the back of exploitation in the southern hemisphere?

In addition, there is also the obvious environmental cost of mining for these raw materials.

The problem is that the consumerist ideology is being touted as part of the solution, but we really we need to look outside that. If the habits of the people don't change, then any measures that are taken will end up being cosmetic.

Exactly !!

I already have a car, the best thing for the environment is not to buy a new electric car but to keep running the one I have.

ZuluDawn2020 · 31-12-2019 01:03AM

John Gibbons shows every sign of being gripped by pseudo messianic meglomania. His rhetoric and writings and tweeting is hysterically apocalyptic.
He spoke at Trinity College in a debate about ecoterrorism and basically said if the so called peaceful extinction rebellion movement is met with "repression" then violence is inevitable although he claims to support peaceful protest. He seems to have a soft spot for the Cuban revolution which was anything but peaceful.

I am suprised he has stopped short of going full David Icke and not said climate change is the work of reptilians

KungPao · 31-12-2019 01:08AM

Can’t we just kill the poor?

SEPT 23 1989 · 31-12-2019 01:11AM

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

John Gibbons shows every sign of being gripped by pseudo messianic meglomania. His rhetoric and writings and tweeting is hysterically apocalyptic.
He spoke at Trinity College in a debate about ecoterrorism and basically said if the so called peaceful extinction rebellion movement is met with "repression" then violence is inevitable although he claims to support peaceful protest. He seems to have a soft spot for the Cuban revolution which was anything but peaceful.

I am suprised he has stopped short of going full David Icke and not said climate change is the work of reptilians

Does Mr Gibbons not realise that if they use violence the response will come from the ordinary people and not the state as we witnessed on the tube in London

The outcome will not be pretty for them

skooterblue2 · 31-12-2019 01:16AM

The One Doctor wrote: »

No modern government would propose measure to reduce the population. Even when it might be the only way out, apart from actually buying less **** and using it for longer.

Agenda 2020 plan by the UN?

its all written there.

They mention the word "education" in the 2030 plan 30 times.

1 in 6 couples in Ireland are having problems with conception.
The Birth rate in Germany, France and Italian native populations are well below the replacement rate.

Shhhhh we dont want to upset the plebs.

Fr_Dougal · 31-12-2019 01:17AM

Peregrine wrote: »

Only one way to do it? No and that's the worst way to do it. It lacks any awareness of the problem beyond a headline.

People don't consume equally.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

When consumption is the issue, you cut consumption. Not population. Cutting population is a pathetic response trying to spread the burden equally when the burden itself was created highly unequally.

Yeah, I’d rather not have to rely on a report written by Oxfam, they have their own agenda.

If you even bothered reading the report you quoted you’d see that their methodology is flawed.

The approach adopted assumes an elastic relationship between income and emissions. Put simply, it takes data on income shares of different percentiles at the national level and distributes aggregate national emissions to those percentiles.
It draws on two datasets: national income distribution data from analysis by Branko Milanovic based on household surveys for 118 countries in the benchmark year 2008; and estimates of CO2 emissions associated with household consumption (which we here term ‘lifestyle consumption emissions’) from Glen Peters based on a Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) trade model, covering 121 countries, for the year 2007

So from the outset it’s assuming that income has an elastic relationship with emissions.

skooterblue2 · 31-12-2019 01:19AM

KungPao wrote: »

Can’t we just kill the poor?

Oh we are..... we are doing it nice and quietly. notice the rising rates of Alzheimer's and Parkinsons? The solution to this is to propose euthanasia. Then kill the youth with abortions. Make a never seen before homeless population. Then there are rising levels of Autism. oh its all happening!!

KWAG2019 · 31-12-2019 01:27AM

ZuluDawn2020 wrote: »

John Gibbons shows every sign of being gripped by pseudo messianic meglomania. His rhetoric and writings and tweeting is hysterically apocalyptic.
He spoke at Trinity College in a debate about ecoterrorism and basically said if the so called peaceful extinction rebellion movement is met with "repression" then violence is inevitable although he claims to support peaceful protest. He seems to have a soft spot for the Cuban revolution which was anything but peaceful.

I am suprised he has stopped short of going full David Icke and not said climate change is the work of reptilians

The historical reality is that violence happens when human beings have to survive and have nothing left to lose.

KWAG2019 · 31-12-2019 01:31AM

Beasty wrote: »

Take them all out and see what happens to your pension funds

The problem is it's now a global economy, a global marketplace. Everything is so intertwined that tweaking one part will probably have unexpected consequences on another

And to be clear, yes huge corporations drive economic growth. They also drive global efficiencies. They are likely to be a major part of any "solution"

And let's not forget governments and their race to make their countries economic leaders, or in some cases wanting to catch up with others. It becomes a vicious cycle and is at a stage now where it can only be tempered by global actions. Unfortunately the required solutions will take much longer then the typical lifespan of any government to deal with, making it a complete disincentive to act

Continuing to defend corporations is the same as endorsing their poisoning of the planet and the democratic institutions which might change things. Talking of pensions funds is ridiculous; if you have no planet your pension isn’t going to be paid.

Beechwoodspark · 31-12-2019 01:36AM

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

...According to the Irish Times. This is the conclusion of at the end of a doom laden article by John Gibbons.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/nature-will-have-the-last-word-on-the-climate-crisis-1.4123780

Bring it on. We need to prioritise saving the earth over all else for a number of decades at least.

skooterblue2 · 31-12-2019 01:42AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Bring it on. We need to prioritise saving the earth over all else for a number of decades at least.

you have seen the judgement on Roundup on the new Bayer-Monsantos conglomerate?

Peregrine · 31-12-2019 02:03AM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If you even bothered reading the report you quoted you’d see that their methodology is flawed.

So from the outset it’s assuming that income has an elastic relationship with emissions.

Are you actually disputing that? You think there's an inelastic relationship between income and emissions? Think of the implications of that. It doesn't match any data.

You actually imply the opposite yourself in your initial post. If you agree that higher consumption leads to higher emissions then you can surely agree that higher income leads to higher consumption and therefore higher emissions.

Christ. I can't believe I'm arguing this.

hapime · 31-12-2019 02:06AM

The idea is pure horse****!
The simple fact is the west is growing more and more food to send to barren parts of Africa that where never meant to have populations in the 10's of millions.
The equivalent of 50 Marshall plans have been pumped into Africa since the 70's and things are only getting worse, time to cut the cord, let famine take its course and the natural order return, the sooner this is done the better as the African population will keep rising and the longer we wait the more will die due to famine once the west cannot feed them, due to war/natural disaster and such things.
Be cruel to be kind, to African folk and the planet.

Fr_Dougal · 31-12-2019 02:49AM

Peregrine wrote: »

Are you actually disputing that? You think there's an inelastic relationship between income and emissions? Think of the implications of that. It doesn't match any data.

You actually imply the opposite yourself in your initial post. If you agree that higher consumption leads to higher emissions then you can surely agree that higher income leads to higher consumption and therefore higher emissions.

Christ. I can't believe I'm arguing this.

You quoted an article from Oxfam that assumed that there is an elastic relationship between income and emissions.

We have proposed a simple but comprehensive framework—the trend/cycle decomposition that is widely used in many other fields in economics—to investigate the decoupling of emissions and growth. For the twenty largest emitters, the average trend elasticity, viz. the response of trend emissions to a 1 percent change in trend GDP, is 0.4. For the advanced economies within this group, the elasticity averages zero; some countries have negative elasticities, suggesting that they had made progress in decoupling their trend emissions from trend GDP.

Source: https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2018/wp1856.ashx

Peregrine · 31-12-2019 03:21AM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You quoted an article from Oxfam that assumed that there is an elastic relationship between income and emissions.

Source: https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2018/wp1856.ashx

What exactly are we looking at here?

That's a paper studying emissions vs economic growth of countries. We were talking about household income. Keep up, please.

It seems you're just furiously Googling elasticity and emissions and Ctrl + Fing for anything that looks relevant to save yourself from admitting that you started an argument about something inconsequential so I'm out.

Fr_Dougal · 31-12-2019 03:40AM

Peregrine wrote: »

What exactly are we looking at here?

That's a paper studying emissions vs economic growth of countries. We were talking about household income. Keep up, please.

It seems you're just furiously Googling elasticity and emissions and Ctrl + Fing for anything that looks relevant to save yourself from admitting that you started an argument about something inconsequential so I'm out.

:rolleyes: That’s a recent paper from the IMF that that disproves your elasticity of income vs emissions comment.

I’m not surprised you’re out.

skooterblue2 · 31-12-2019 03:58AM

hapime wrote: »

The idea is pure horse****!
The simple fact is the west is growing more and more food to send to barren parts of Africa that where never meant to have populations in the 10's of millions.
The equivalent of 50 Marshall plans have been pumped into Africa since the 70's and things are only getting worse, time to cut the cord, let famine take its course and the natural order return, the sooner this is done the better as the African population will keep rising and the longer we wait the more will die due to famine once the west cannot feed them, due to war/natural disaster and such things.
Be cruel to be kind, to African folk and the planet.

Actually there is more arable land in Africa than there is in Europe. Its just either unused or mismanaged.
Guess what is going to happen to all the africans when they work out the tit is turned off from the first world? They are all coming to the first world.

Shefwedfan · 31-12-2019 09:20AM

mzungu wrote: »

Part of the problem is changing the public mindset away from consumerism. The governments plan to get 1 million electric cars on the road by 2030 is all well and good, but if people end up changing electric cars as often as they do with petrol and diesel then we are back at square A. For eg. raw materials like cobalt used for electric car batteries are still attained by some poor kid for less than a euro a day in the DRC. This corporate "business model" will still remain no matter what kind of car you are driving. Is there any use in patting oneself on the back for driving an electric car and saving the planet when it is still built off the back of exploitation in the southern hemisphere?

In addition, there is also the obvious environmental cost of mining for these raw materials. There are no easy answers, but even the current crop of lithium-ion batteries produced in China, South Korea and Japan were dependent on the use of fossil fuels. At present, those batteries are forecasted to be discarded by 2030, but with few options touted for recycling and reuse at this moment in time.

The problem is that the consumerist ideology is being touted as part of the solution, but we really need to look outside that. If the habits of the people don't change, then any measures that are taken will end up being cosmetic.

Most if not all the car companies have already moved to safe cobalt, this has been confirmed a number of times. They are also all on a rush for new technology to remove cobalt

The cobalt you mention is used in laptops, phones etc.

Most of lithium comes Australia and Chile. Car batteries are also highly sought to be reused for solar pv

The problem is not car batteries, it’s all the cheap s**t people buy from China and throw away the battery.

The plan the government had was then when people bought new cars they would buy electric instead of combustion. Not for 1 million additional people to go out and buy 1 million new cars.

Shefwedfan · 31-12-2019 09:31AM

A bigger affect on the climate would be to stop child maintenance for over 3 kids in ireland.

Let’s see how many lovely Mammies are out their with 7 kids hanging out of them when they have to pay for the child themselves

Markcheese · 31-12-2019 09:48AM

KungPao wrote: »

Can’t we just kill the poor?

Or eat the rich ?

X111111111111 · 31-12-2019 10:24AM

Shefwedfan wrote: »

A bigger affect on the climate would be to stop child maintenance for over 3 kids in ireland.

Let’s see how many lovely Mammies are out their with 7 kids hanging out of them when they have to pay for the child themselves

The problem is bigger than Ireland tbh. Africans don't get child maintenance handouts yet they keep popping out kids by the dozen, same as most poorer nations. Let them sink or swim and put all the money we waste towards "helping" them towards thre security of european borders.

Wilfuler. · 31-12-2019 10:29AM

X111111111111 wrote: »

The problem is bigger than Ireland tbh. Africans don't get child maintenance handouts yet they keep popping out kids by the dozen, same as most poorer nations. Let them sink or swim and put all the money we waste towards "helping" them towards thre security of european borders.

A beautiful wall

Phoebas · 31-12-2019 10:44AM

X111111111111 wrote: »

The problem is bigger than Ireland tbh. Africans don't get child maintenance handouts yet they keep popping out kids by the dozen, same as most poorer nations. Let them sink or swim and put all the money we waste towards "helping" them towards thre security of european borders.

I guess it was only a matter of time before the people who contribute the least to the climate crisis but suffer the most from it got the blame for it.

We need rationing and wartime style restrictions..

Comments