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

Tell me how wrote: »

So, you acknowledge that something needs to be done but immediately jump to anything which could be done is pointless.

If you were in control for a week, if someone said to you, introduce some initiative, anything, which had a reasonable chance of positively influencing behaviour, what would it be that you would do?

Of course I acknowledge that something needs to be done, I'm not a climate denier.

What I'm questioning is the effectiveness of a carbon tax that's been touted as a solution. Diesel has gone up 5c at the forecourt over the last week, 5 times the likely increase in carbon tax at the budget, do you really think that will reduce emissions? Do you think carbon emissions in transport are 4% lower this week than last due to the price rise? Carbon is clearly not very price sensitive.
Fuel prices have risen from 99c/l during the recession to 135c/l now and transport emissions have increased. All a carbon tax will achieve is make the poor, poorer. It's completely regressive.

The other way to reduce emissions is to reduce people's standard of living - based on current technology. Protesters need to be honest about that, to both themselves and others.

Tell me how wrote: »

Firstly, you're the one suggesting carbon tax here in this conversation, I'm not, but there is strong evidence that it takes a penalty to actually instigate change.

Secondly, why does it have to reduce people's standard of living? If there were 50% less cars on the city centre roads with the people instead cycling or using public transport, is that a reduction in standard of living.

Akso, let's think about the car situation. On average, repayments, tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance, tolls probably mean most people are forking out 100/week on theirs. After tax. That's say 8k a year from your gross, just for the car. If you're on 40k, that's 20% of your wage.

Now, if you use your car one hour each morning and evening, 5 days a week and 3 hours each day sat and Sunday, that's 16 hrs/week (fairly heavy use for most I would say) or 10% of available time. So you're spending 20% of you're income on something which is idle 90% of the time. Does that seem right?

Say 50% more urban dwellers were cycling instead if going by car, they'll generally be healthier, get their quicker and have more money for having done so. Is that a reduction in quality of life?

Granted, in rural areas, you mostly do need a car but we should promote what we can, where we can.

The protests are about getting government's to take action to halt climate change. In the Irish context, the government have signaled that carbon tax is going to be a key part of their climate policy. The protests are therefore about getting the government to implement the tax.

Indeed let's think about the car situation. As I have already outlined, increases in the price of fuel have demonstrably little effect on both demand and emissions. The price of fuel has increased by at least 35% since it's ten year low and emissions have increased since then. Carbon is clearly not price sensitive in the range we are currently priced in. You rightly point out, driving is already expensive therefore people drive because they have to, not because they want to.

The average car, iirc is driven some 20k km. Using the kind of efficiency I get myself a carbon tax increase of 5c/l would amount to just under €55/yr. That is simply not enough to change behaviour, but a nice little boost for the government all under the green cloak. The tax would quite frankly need to be 5 to 10x that to have the desired effect of effectively pricing people out of their cars. That would of course have consequences such as increased poverty and lower economic growth. Is this what you want? To price the poor out of their cars?

Standard of living is about having access to services and having money to spend on the things you want and need. A tax that diverts your disposable income away from that lowers your standard of living.

Compelling.

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Greta and your ilk, stop using phones, stop been brought to school, stop using planes, if not fu5k off and fu5k up.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So we need to give up our missions as a species in to space as well now?

I'm all for cleaning up our act in as far as is practical but being stupid is not part of the solution.

Anyone have any idea what the solutions are?
The constraints are: not reduce standard of living
Not rely on expensive technologies

Deleted User wrote: »

your entire sell was "anyone of good faith has to agree to agree with me, anyone else i will ignore"

...

most of the greta acolytes here wouldve been browbeating the proles about something else in 2009 and will be browbeating the proles about something else in 2029. there's always that percentage that needs to be on a soapbox wagging fingers at everyone else, god bless them.

I didn't mention Ms. Thunberg once in my post. Nor was my post a one liner saying "anyone of good faith has to agree to agree with me, anyone else i will ignore". It contained more than that, but that would be obvious to anyone who wanted to take it on face value. So I'm not going to talk about Ms. Thunberg, because I didn't to begin with, regardless of the thread we're in.

I will however, again mention my mention of facts. Just going to quote here, as it's easier:

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Opinions, however, are not facts. Climate change doesn't give a **** about your opinion. Scientists deal in facts. The scientific consensus* is overwhelmingly (97-98%) in favoure of the fact that climate change is man-made.

As for good faith, I think the tone of your post seems to say a lot there. You won't accept facts for what they are, because you don't agree with them, nor will you mention them when people quote them as part of their post. And so we go back to the position of arguing in good faith.

Onto the list you go.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Anyone have any idea what the solutions are?
The constraints are: not reduce standard of living
Not rely on expensive technologies

The solution is lowering our standard of living. We cant continue as is, even if climate change is a hoax like you all say, the way we are living now means the earth will be depleted and polluted beyond repair sooner or later. Why is it so scary to every one that they may have to live with less choice of crap that we consume?

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The solution is lowering our standard of living. We cant continue as is, even if climate change is a hoax like you all say, the way we are living now means the earth will be depleted and polluted beyond repair sooner or later. Why is it so scary to every one that they may have to live with less choice of crap that we consume?

Whatever about us in the west reducing our standards of living who is going to tell the Chinese,Indians and Africans to stop increasing their standards of living and go backwards.

It’s not realistic.

jackboy wrote: »

Whatever about us in the west reducing our standards of living who is going to tell the Chinese,Indians and Africans to stop increasing their standards of living and go backwards.

It’s not realistic.

I dont think africa will be catching up with us any time soon. Anyway i see your point and nothing us going to change im just saying that the only way to clean our mess up is by changing the way we live and consume. We as a species would rather carry on as is until war and famine break out however.

Thelonious Monk wrote:

The solution is lowering our standard of living. We cant continue as is, even if climate change is a hoax like you all say, the way we are living now means the earth will be depleted and polluted beyond repair sooner or later. Why is it so scary to every one that they may have to live with less choice of crap that we consume?

I don’t think we have to lower our standards at all, just change how we live our lives, it's gonna require monumental investment though, and that's where the problems start, we ve de-powered our democratic institutions and systems so much now, our governments are struggling to do this

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The solution is lowering our standard of living. We cant continue as is, even if climate change is a hoax like you all say, the way we are living now means the earth will be depleted and polluted beyond repair sooner or later. Why is it so scary to every one that they may have to live with less choice of crap that we consume?

In other words bicycles for us plebeians while planes are reserved only for the rich. Forget about that package holiday to Spain in future it will be hard to get off this rain sodden island in the North Atlantic unless you are a member of the great and good in Irish society.


If you think I'm joking ex British prime minister May left a poison pill before she exited office.


Climate change: Big lifestyle changes 'needed to cut emissions'
Roger Harrabin - BBC environment analyst

People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government's chief environment scientist has warned.

Prof Sir Ian Boyd said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from the so-called Net Zero emissions target.

source

Paul Homewood captured this

Sir Ian Boyd has lifted the lid on the reality of the programme. We will all have to accept big lifestyle changes – travel less, eat less, consume less.

And forget about cheap imports from Asia, because these simply offshore emissions.

As Sir Ian points out, this is likely to mean much higher taxes on sinful consumption. Of course, this won’t matter to Elton John and co, who can afford to pay for their indulgences.

But eventually some form of compulsion or rationing will be necessary, if climate targets are to be met.

Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs
Roger Harrabin - BBC environment analyst

In its report, the committee said: “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”

source

We need our own great leap forward.





If you think I'm joking there have been several expressions from western leaders and bureaucrats to do just that here is but one example.


At Toronto fundraiser, Justin Trudeau seemingly admires China's 'basic dictatorship'

During the event, which itself was widely criticized for sexist and patronizing undertones, an audience member asked Mr. Trudeau which nation’s “administration he most admired.”

The party leader responded: “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar. There is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about: having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting.”

Noting he was on camera, Mr. Trudeau then said: “But Sun News can now report that I prefer China.”

source

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Opinions, however, are not facts. Climate change doesn't give a **** about your opinion. Scientists deal in facts. The scientific consensus* is overwhelmingly (97-98%) in favoure of the fact that climate change is man-made.

Consensus or dogma? These used to be scientific consensus that the earth was flat. Newtons laws were consensus until Einstein came along. Eugenics was scientific consensus for a long time and you will find all the great and good accepted it and it was in practice in some Sweden & Norway up to the 1970s. The first group systematically killed by the Nazis were those deemed mentally unfit. Hitler got his ideas from the American eugenics policies.

One of the Supreme Court's Worst Decisions Was About Science

By the 1920s, eugenics was a genuine movement. As author and pediatrician Paul Offit describes in his new book, Pandora's Lab, Hundreds of colleges taught courses on the subject. It appeared in the majority of high school biology textbooks. There were fairs, meetings, and advertisements. The nationwide campaign convinced citizens and legislatures – forty-one states eventually prohibited marriage by those deemed feeble-minded or insane, and a few states even instituted policies of forced sterilization.

source

Science is not done by consensus and the 97% figure often touted is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Exploiting children is what the libtards do best

All politicians across the spectrum do that when it suits them because nobody is going to attack children, it makes your opponent look like monsters.

Important to note that Greta is a young adult (16 years) being presented as a much younger child. This is quite deliberate image manipulation by the organisation around her.

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Your leader in Antifa attire

my leader!

Wanderer78 wrote: »

my leader!

Say it like you mean it.

weldoninhio wrote: »

In medieval times the average temp was 2c higher than nowadays. Wasn’t catastrophic for those people.

In general yes, however, despite this they were only one harvest away from starvation and when that cycle ended in the 14th century the catastrophic outcome was almost an understatement.