Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

[Deleted User] · 27-01-2020 7:13pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It costs a lot of money to hang around Davos this time of year and her minder Luisa Neubauer (23) showed up again by the climate worriers side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25ZEXsPvWLc

Greta knows only what she is told and says only what is written for her and her father and an Indian activist from the UN write her responses. She is a credible actress with passion. The incident where she sat in first class on the train home but they took a photo of her on the floor to create this image of suffering. Except the train company called it out. This is stage managed and advised by a lot of people, I believe the term for this behaviour is astroturfing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320

The cheek of Rebel News calling themselves news

AlekSmart · 27-01-2020 8:56pm

Jaylee Jealous Rugby wrote: »

Don’t know how that child functions with that level of anxiety in her life Jesus

Whether or not one concurs with Ms Thunberg's views,it is very clear that this young woman is under significant mental stress.

However,whilst this may well be disregarded in an adult who has taken the decision to self-stress,the manner in which the younger Greta Thunberg has been set on this path should surely cause unease.

Those video clips (irrespective of who filmed them) are not easy viewing,particularly to those with any experience of parenting adolescents.

I am more and more coming to the view that her Parents,and the,now expanding,group of assistants,facilitators and whatever have become blinded by the "success" of their project,and as a result cannot see Greta Thunberg as a person in her own right.

This,of itself,disturbs me a whole lot more than Climate Change,or any of the other sidebar issues she is being increasingly given to espouse.

Above all else it is sad to see...:(

Tell me how · 27-01-2020 11:02pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whether or not one concurs with Ms Thunberg's views,it is very clear that this young woman is under significant mental stress.

However,whilst this may well be disregarded in an adult who has taken the decision to self-stress,the manner in which the younger Greta Thunberg has been set on this path should surely cause unease.

Those video clips (irrespective of who filmed them) are not easy viewing,particularly to those with any experience of parenting adolescents.

I am more and more coming to the view that her Parents,and the,now expanding,group of assistants,facilitators and whatever have become blinded by the "success" of their project,and as a result cannot see Greta Thunberg as a person in her own right.

This,of itself,disturbs me a whole lot more than Climate Change,or any of the other sidebar issues she is being increasingly given to espouse.

Above all else it is sad to see...:(

That is nonsense.

How many clips of here has there been where she has been in any way distressed versus ones where she has been happy and smiling. Have you seen her tweets? Most of them are positive in nature and most pictures she posts of herself has her looking very happy and relaxed.

She responded in a humorous fashion to Trump trying to undermine her by changing her Twitter bio a couple of times which shows someone who has a mischievous side.

The faux (in my view) concern is only interesting in the sense that it shows how much some will strive to find a way to talk about her being silenced.

jackboy · 27-01-2020 11:07pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Have you seen her tweets? Most of them are positive in nature and most pictures she posts of herself has her looking very happy and relaxed.

She responded in a humorous fashion to Trump trying to undermine her by changing her Twitter bio a couple of times which shows someone who has a mischievous side. .

In fairness we know for sure now that Greta does not write her social media posts. The photos are clearly posed and contrived.

[Deleted User] · 27-01-2020 11:36pm

jackboy wrote: »

In fairness we know for sure now that Greta does not write her social media posts. The photos are clearly posed and contrived.

My social media posts are posed and contrived too

Fr_Dougal · 27-01-2020 11:38pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whether or not one concurs with Ms Thunberg's views,it is very clear that this young woman is under significant mental stress.

However,whilst this may well be disregarded in an adult who has taken the decision to self-stress,the manner in which the younger Greta Thunberg has been set on this path should surely cause unease.

Those video clips (irrespective of who filmed them) are not easy viewing,particularly to those with any experience of parenting adolescents.

I am more and more coming to the view that her Parents,and the,now expanding,group of assistants,facilitators and whatever have become blinded by the "success" of their project,and as a result cannot see Greta Thunberg as a person in her own right.

This,of itself,disturbs me a whole lot more than Climate Change,or any of the other sidebar issues she is being increasingly given to espouse.

Above all else it is sad to see...:(

Completely agree. Not only is she under immense stress, but I can guarantee you that her young followers will find themselves in the same situation in the coming months/years. All these school strikers, between exams and unnecessarily worrying about the climate will need counselling in the near future.

Greta has stolen THEIR childhoods.

AlekSmart · 28-01-2020 7:26am

Tell me how wrote: »

That is nonsense.

How many clips of here has there been where she has been in any way distressed versus ones where she has been happy and smiling. Have you seen her tweets? Most of them are positive in nature and most pictures she posts of herself has her looking very happy and relaxed.

She responded in a humorous fashion to Trump trying to undermine her by changing her Twitter bio a couple of times which shows someone who has a mischievous side.

The faux (in my view) concern is only interesting in the sense that it shows how much some will strive to find a way to talk about her being silenced.

You may consider it nonsense,but be VERY certain my concerns in this regard are far from "Faux" as you so dismissively put it.

mandrake04 · 28-01-2020 7:46am

Tell me how wrote: »

Your post does tell a truth. Many people are motivated purely on a personal level that they dislike the messenger. Probably the fact that she is young and female has a lot to do with it.

Maybe some small percentage but some might also dislike her because she has an angry cold demeanour. But just maybe this is not for the reason you think.

She is 17 but looks like a 12 year old, intellectually challenged and her facial features like smooth philtrum, palpebral fissures, thin vermilion border etc could be as reported attributed to fetal alcohol syndrome....maybe she has reasons to be angry that have nothing to do with the climate but closer to home. The climate crusade serves as a distraction and some people who might even accept there is climate change do not want to be lectured by such a person.

I’m not saying this is the case but people’s point of view have to be taken into consideration.

Lyan · 28-01-2020 8:13am

So, aside from power hungry elites and braindead teenagers do regular people actually take this kid seriously? It would be sad to see emotion triumph over reason on such an important issue.

[Deleted User] · 28-01-2020 9:09am

Lyan wrote: »

So, aside from power hungry elites and braindead teenagers do regular people actually take this kid seriously? It would be sad to see emotion triumph over reason on such an important issue.

I'm not really a fan of her but her message is 100% correct

Blue Badger · 28-01-2020 9:49am

partyjungle wrote: »

I'm not really a fan of her but her message is 100% correct

Yeah, full agreement here from me too.

The vehicle of a message doesn't matter. What matters is that the need for action is pushed to the forefront. And whatever people say, I can tell you that my circles of friends are now all discussing the environment regularly because of Greta (they're big fans).

Genuinely, a number of them are actively looking into ways they can donate to organisations that replant native woodlands, protect the amazon, DO something (especially with regard protecting biodiversity as keeps being trumpeted by the Greens). And indeed, a number have now said they will vote Green (I don't like a lot of their policies but tbh who likes any party atm).

Even I'm coming around to the idea of donating 5% of my paycheck to charities that deal with the above^. I know one person who took a 10% pledge (this is a thing that you sign up to) for 'normal' charities but as far as I'm concerned Environment > People.

The_Conductor · 28-01-2020 10:19am

Lyan wrote: »

So, aside from power hungry elites and braindead teenagers do regular people actually take this kid seriously? It would be sad to see emotion triumph over reason on such an important issue.

Ditto- I'm not a fan of hers.

I prefer to look at the bigger picture and the pros and cons of various situations and proposals. Life is not black and white- and there is always a cost associated with going down particular paths, or not doing so- and the costs and benefits of differing actions (or inactions) needs to be logically weighed up and deliberated on.

Stomping on the ground and pouting- only gets people's backs up- and regardless of the relative merits of the message- the messenger becomes the story- rather than the message. At the moment Greta is on a pedestal and afforded an audience by virtue of the fact that she is Greta. She only speaks in absolutes and refuses to engage with anyone who tries to logically look at her proposals.

I'm sorry that I don't like her (or her friend Luisa). I'm not a rabid environmentalist- but I do have more than a passing interest in it- and hold an undergrad degree in forestry and postgrad qualifications in environmental resource management- so I'm not exactly a random person who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about either.

is_that_so · 28-01-2020 10:35am

partyjungle wrote: »

I'm not really a fan of her but her message is 100% correct

No message is 100% correct. There's nuance and a "but" to everything. The risk of her message is that she is divisive. Most would accept the core of a message about climate issues, without her own adulterations of course. Where that division comes in is whether she should be the conduit, which of course spurs outrage all over. In politics things get done in that Goldilocks zone of the centre and where compromise can be found. Megaphone activism does little to foster anything more than entrenched positions and random abuse.

[Deleted User] · 28-01-2020 10:39am

is_that_so wrote: »

No message is 100% correct. There's nuance and a "but" to everything. The risk of her message is that she is divisive. Most would accept the core of a message about climate issues, without her own adulterations of course. Where that division comes in is whether she should be the conduit, which of course spurs outrage all over. In politics things get done in that Goldilocks zone of the centre and where compromise can be found. Megaphone activism does little to foster anything more than entrenched positions and random abuse.

I'd argue that the extreme ends of activism can pull the center.

is_that_so · 28-01-2020 10:43am

partyjungle wrote: »

I'd argue that the extreme ends of activism can pull the center.

It depends what their activism is about. They can go either way and may change some attitudes but its their outright intolerance that makes people reject them. The most recent example is ER, although peopled by a bunch of utter cretins has never helped their cause.

mandrake04 · 28-01-2020 10:44am

is_that_so wrote: »

No message is 100% correct. There's nuance and a "but" to everything. The risk of her message is that she is divisive. Most would accept the core of a message about climate issues, without her own adulterations of course. Where that division comes in is whether she should be the conduit, which of course spurs outrage all over. In politics things get done in that Goldilocks zone of the centre and where compromise can be found. Megaphone activism does little to foster anything more than entrenched positions and random abuse.

I agree, I look at the science and the data and am intelligent enough to make up my own mind. I don’t feel the need to applause the monkey even though I agree with some of her points ...a broken clock is technically correct twice a day.

Goldilocks zone where you have people onside with credibility rather than shock value of idiotism, stunts, Twitter BS and whatever else that is flavour of the month.

AlekSmart · 28-01-2020 9:18pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ditto- I'm not a fan of hers.

I prefer to look at the bigger picture and the pros and cons of various situations and proposals. Life is not black and white- and there is always a cost associated with going down particular paths, or not doing so- and the costs and benefits of differing actions (or inactions) needs to be logically weighed up and deliberated on.

Stomping on the ground and pouting- only gets people's backs up- and regardless of the relative merits of the message- the messenger becomes the story- rather than the message. At the moment Greta is on a pedestal and afforded an audience by virtue of the fact that she is Greta. She only speaks in absolutes and refuses to engage with anyone who tries to logically look at her proposals.

I'm sorry that I don't like her (or her friend Luisa). I'm not a rabid environmentalist- but I do have more than a passing interest in it- and hold an undergrad degree in forestry and postgrad qualifications in environmental resource management- so I'm not exactly a random person who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about either.

It does'nt,or should'nt be about being "a fan" of Greta Thunberg's.

For somebody like Ms Thunberg however,it often IS Black & White,for that is how they view and interact with the broader world,that is WHEN they choose to interact at all.

In my view,Ms Thunberg and her particular ability (and it IS that...not the DISability which many describe it as),was spotted at a particular stage in this campaign by people well versed in campaigning,who were sufficiently astute,and cruel enough to see an opening for their views to be pushed far along the scale in media terms...and that is exactly how it has panned out.

At some point it may well come to pass that Ms Thunberg and her backers will part company,and this is where the real risks lie for her.

In the meantime,and noting The Conductor's impressive environmental credentials,I cannot but feel that Ms Thunberg could benefit hugely from pursuing a similar path in order to accquire REAL insight and knowledge of the VERY complex structures which surround Mankind's (temporary) occupation of some of this planet.

KyussB · 29-01-2020 3:40pm

It's very black and white: We arrest our carbon emissions - and quickly - or we push the planets temperature to a point that we know is severely ecologically/environmentally/economically destructive, and which raises the threat of reaching tipping points that make it much harder to arrest this process.

It's that simple. The consensus from the vast majority of scientists who are experts in this area says this. The consensus is also that we aren't doing nearly enough - even though we are capable of doing far more.

The scientists are relying on non-experts heeding this message and acting - they don't subscribe to the idiotic fallacy that everyone has to be a climate scientist before they can have a valid opinion, and before we can do anything (nobody here is a climate scientist btw...) - they need non-experts lobbying and acting based on the scientific consensus.

The_Conductor · 29-01-2020 4:38pm

Its not black and white though- its thousands and thousands of shades of grey.
People cannot be forced to sit in cold unheated houses, in the dark- not go anywhere, radically alter their diets and be glad to pay extra for the pain and misery of doing so. There has to be a carrot and a stick approach- cognisant of the fact that people have to live. We also have to be cognisant of the fact that burning in the Amazon (and Australia this year) and the lack of any targets to reduce emissions but rather allow a tapered increase in India and China in particular- negate the small changes that consumers in Europe may be making. The planet is a whole- and the actions of one person can be easily undone by the inactions or active destructive tendencies of another. Then we have the US (sigh...……)

We currently have carbon taxes of EUR26/tonne- with a suggested increase in this to EUR100/tonne in the coming years. This cannot happen without causing some pain...…….

On a national basis- we also have an abnormally large sized beef herd and unusually low afforestation levels. Its a bit of a no-brainer that many of the beef farmers should be actively encouraged to afforest instead- beef farming is considered to the lazy farmers approach to farming anyhow- the hard work is in dairy farming...……

There are so many different approaches to looking at the issues facing the planet- however, we have to accept that they are planet wide issues- focusing on little old Ireland and its 26 Euro a tonne carbon tax- without any cognisance of India and China increasing their CO output or the US running roughshod over international treaties and agreements- is a form of self flagellation- it might make some people feel better psychologically- but overall, not only has nothing changed- but things continue to get a whole lot worse.

Lots of things have to happen- lots of changes have to happen- everywhere. Getting our knickers in a twist about Sean and Mary burning a turf fire outside of Ballyhaunis and bringing them to court over it- isn't going to break the planet- its just a mindless distraction from the bigger picture.

We all have a part to play- however, we all are everybody- not just the people of Ireland, or Europe- we all share this little planet and have to manage it in an appropriate manner. Making exceptions for one person- ends up punishing another- and ignoring the flagrant abuses that are happening- belittles the hardships that we insist on imposing on the little people who have no say in the matter.

Paddygreen · 29-01-2020 5:03pm

KyussB wrote: »

It's very black and white: We arrest our carbon emissions - and quickly - or we push the planets temperature to a point that we know is severely ecologically/environmentally/economically destructive, and which raises the threat of reaching tipping points that make it much harder to arrest this process.

It's that simple. The consensus from the vast majority of scientists who are experts in this area says this. The consensus is also that we aren't doing nearly enough - even though we are capable of doing far more.

The scientists are relying on non-experts heeding this message and acting - they don't subscribe to the idiotic fallacy that everyone has to be a climate scientist before they can have a valid opinion, and before we can do anything (nobody here is a climate scientist btw...) - they need non-experts lobbying and acting based on the scientific consensus.

Democracy is standing in the way of climate action. Politicians cave in to populism and by virtue of the fact they need votes to remain politicians it is unlikely that they will push measures that will inevitably lead to people being forced to change their behaviour in light of the climate emergency.people are allergic to taxes and being told that they have to radically change how they live.

That said it is clear to me that the only solution is for democracy to be suspended for the duration of the Climate Emergency and governance should be administered by a panel of experts.

[Deleted User] · 29-01-2020 5:07pm

Paddygreen wrote: »

That said it is clear to me that the only solution is for democracy to be suspended for the duration of the Climate Emergency and governance should be administered by a panel of experts.

What has been clear to me from day one is that you believe the exact opposite of what you preach. You're as bad as the clowns who register after midnight to sidestep the mods. Pack it in.

KyussB · 29-01-2020 6:14pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not black and white though- its thousands and thousands of shades of grey.
People cannot be forced to sit in cold unheated houses, in the dark- not go anywhere, radically alter their diets and be glad to pay extra for the pain and misery of doing so. There has to be a carrot and a stick approach- cognisant of the fact that people have to live. We also have to be cognisant of the fact that burning in the Amazon (and Australia this year) and the lack of any targets to reduce emissions but rather allow a tapered increase in India and China in particular- negate the small changes that consumers in Europe may be making. The planet is a whole- and the actions of one person can be easily undone by the inactions or active destructive tendencies of another. Then we have the US (sigh...……)

We currently have carbon taxes of EUR26/tonne- with a suggested increase in this to EUR100/tonne in the coming years. This cannot happen without causing some pain...…….

On a national basis- we also have an abnormally large sized beef herd and unusually low afforestation levels. Its a bit of a no-brainer that many of the beef farmers should be actively encouraged to afforest instead- beef farming is considered to the lazy farmers approach to farming anyhow- the hard work is in dairy farming...……

There are so many different approaches to looking at the issues facing the planet- however, we have to accept that they are planet wide issues- focusing on little old Ireland and its 26 Euro a tonne carbon tax- without any cognisance of India and China increasing their CO output or the US running roughshod over international treaties and agreements- is a form of self flagellation- it might make some people feel better psychologically- but overall, not only has nothing changed- but things continue to get a whole lot worse.

Lots of things have to happen- lots of changes have to happen- everywhere. Getting our knickers in a twist about Sean and Mary burning a turf fire outside of Ballyhaunis and bringing them to court over it- isn't going to break the planet- its just a mindless distraction from the bigger picture.

We all have a part to play- however, we all are everybody- not just the people of Ireland, or Europe- we all share this little planet and have to manage it in an appropriate manner. Making exceptions for one person- ends up punishing another- and ignoring the flagrant abuses that are happening- belittles the hardships that we insist on imposing on the little people who have no say in the matter.

Nobody is saying to take the path of subsistence living - the solution with the most mainstream acceptance follows the Green New Deal pattern of overhauling our economies.

The carrot and stick approach only applies to market solutions. Market solutions have shown they are incapable of arresting emissions fast enough - only non-market solutions can achieve the scale of action needed.

A good article in the Guardian today, pointed out that targets aren't enough, as they regularly fail to be achieved - a policy of maximization of effort to arrest climate emissions (within agreed quality of life standards) is what's needed.

It's very black and white, because there is a consensus on the problem of climate change among the qualified experts, and we have detailed plans of the necessary solutions, and how to enact them, ready to go - we now need the political pressure to put it into action.

The_Conductor · 29-01-2020 8:01pm

I never suggested 'subsistence living'- the stick that you and others propose to tax people into compliance, will force people to make unpalatable choices. Many people already have difficulty heating their homes to a reasonable standard, feeding themselves, commuting to and from work etc etc. Taxing them into compliance in the name of climate activism- what is that going to achieve. Some personal satisfaction that they're doing their bit for the planet- while all the other countries are undoing any good that they might be doing? Its an integrated system- you can't look at one country and how they can change their behaviour to the betterment of the planet- it has to be looked at as a whole, or else its worthless.

Whether you like it or not- we are in a market economy- and that is not going to change. You are going to have to live with it. You can quote Marxism or any other dogma at me until the cows come home- however, at the end of the day- the premise of our economy is that it is market based, and you are going to have to base any actions you propose to take on that basis. So- there has to be a carrot and a stick- like it or lump it. There has to be give and take. Farmers will have to be bribed to divest of beef herds and invest in afforestation. They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts- climate change or any other mitigating factor be damned.

Targets are only one aspect of dealing with carbon emissions (to say nothing of other emissions)- they may be imperfect- however, they are better than a free-for-all, and even the emerging economies have signed up to specific targets. Its when you have a bull in the China shop- such as the US- who are pulling out of international agreements and doing their own thing- that a system of targets breaks down.

Its most certainly not black and white. It is accepted that climate change is happening. It is not accepted how best to deal with it- and even with accords- they are merely words if people only pay them lipservice. There are a smorgasbord of options on the table which detail possible courses of action for mitigating carbon and other emissions. All of these options have both costs and opportunities associated with them. It is a lie to pretend there is no cost involved and that its not going to hurt people- the very least you can do is acknowledge solutions are not free, they are often elaborate and costly- and involve redesigning societies on a grandscale.

When you have a country like Ireland where you can't even use wind power without some gombeen kicking up hell over the whine from a turbine- or a few bird strikes- to say nothing of the cost of the turbines (I did a placement in Nordtank back in the 90s) you can see why your black and white is manure.

Regardless of whether people are willing to subscribe to your pivot away from market based economies (they aren't) or not- while there are solutions to specific issues on the table- to try and pretend its black and white is an insult- and cannot but bring hardship on those who can least afford to pay for your pie in the sky dreams.

Climate change is an issue. However there is no consensus on how to deal with it- and it is duplicitous of you to pretend its a done deal, its far from the fact.

Eric Cartman · 29-01-2020 8:15pm

KyussB wrote: »

Nobody is saying to take the path of subsistence living - the solution with the most mainstream acceptance follows the Green New Deal pattern of overhauling our economies.

The carrot and stick approach only applies to market solutions. Market solutions have shown they are incapable of arresting emissions fast enough - only non-market solutions can achieve the scale of action needed.

A good article in the Guardian today, pointed out that targets aren't enough, as they regularly fail to be achieved - a policy of maximization of effort to arrest climate emissions (within agreed quality of life standards) is what's needed.

It's very black and white, because there is a consensus on the problem of climate change among the qualified experts, and we have detailed plans of the necessary solutions, and how to enact them, ready to go - we now need the political pressure to put it into action.

So 'socialism is the solution' , heard that one before, NEXT...

KyussB · 29-01-2020 8:16pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

*snip*

You are talking about subsitence living - you're also still going on about 'market solutions' i.e. using taxes as a stick - when that's not what I said at all...

We live in mixed economies, not pure market economies - this is not 'Marxist' it's the reality we live in, I have not advocated moving away from mixed economies - and given that the market side of our economies is not capable of acting fast enough, we need to use the non-market portion of our economies to arrest our emissions.

You're the type who'd rather spend the next couple of decades wrangling over imagined 'complexity', rather than doing anything even when we have workable solutions Right. Now.

We know what the solutions are, and the set of solutions capable of arresting emissions fast enough is pretty much limited to those templated on the Green New Deal - and we know we need to act on them straight away.

The_Conductor · 29-01-2020 8:22pm

Please don't patronise me, socialism or marxism is still socialism or marxism however you like to dress it up.

KyussB · 29-01-2020 8:29pm

At this stage you don't even know what you're criticizing. We live in mixed economies - we don't live in pure market economies, they don't exist.

You'll be pleased to know that this doesn't make us all Marxists :rolleyes: - neither does it make it Marxist to use the non-market portion of our economies, to arrest our emissions.

We're not in the US guys - you can give up importing the McCarthyist buzzword shite - just right-wing version of virtue signalling.

gozunda · 29-01-2020 9:29pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not black and white though- its thousands and thousands of shades of grey.
People cannot be forced to sit in cold unheated houses, in the dark- not go anywhere, radically alter their diets and be glad to pay extra for the pain and misery of doing so. There has to be a carrot and a stick approach- cognisant of the fact that people have to live. We also have to be cognisant of the fact that burning in the Amazon (and Australia this year) and the lack of any targets to reduce emissions but rather allow a tapered increase in India and China in particular- negate the small changes that consumers in Europe may be making. The planet is a whole- and the actions of one person can be easily undone by the inactions or active destructive tendencies of another. Then we have the US (sigh...……)

We currently have carbon taxes of EUR26/tonne- with a suggested increase in this to EUR100/tonne in the coming years. This cannot happen without causing some pain...…….

On a national basis- we also have an abnormally large sized beef herd and unusually low afforestation levels. Its a bit of a no-brainer that many of the beef farmers should be actively encouraged to afforest instead- beef farming is considered to the lazy farmers approach to farming anyhow- the hard work is in dairy farming...……

There are so many different approaches to looking at the issues facing the planet- however, we have to accept that they are planet wide issues- focusing on little old Ireland and its 26 Euro a tonne carbon tax- without any cognisance of India and China increasing their CO output or the US running roughshod over international treaties and agreements- is a form of self flagellation- it might make some people feel better psychologically- but overall, not only has nothing changed- but things continue to get a whole lot worse.

Lots of things have to happen- lots of changes have to happen- everywhere. Getting our knickers in a twist about Sean and Mary burning a turf fire outside of Ballyhaunis and bringing them to court over it- isn't going to break the planet- its just a mindless distraction from the bigger picture.

We all have a part to play- however, we all are everybody- not just the people of Ireland, or Europe- we all share this little planet and have to manage it in an appropriate manner. Making exceptions for one person- ends up punishing another- and ignoring the flagrant abuses that are happening- belittles the hardships that we insist on imposing on the little people who have no say in the matter.

I agree with much of what you say there. Those screaming for all fossil fuels to be kept in the ground right now (such as greta et al) really have no friggin idea what that entails in practice. No flying, no transport of goods no heating and lots of other no's on things that are essential for society to function and provide essential services.

In some ways the whole carbon tax issue appears to be devolving into demands simply to extract money from those already paying the most with the least benefit. With little or no evidence that those carbon taxes are to be used to actually make positive changes.

With regard to agriculture - the facts are that we currently have less cattle in the country than we did in 1973. That said the dairy herd is increasing because that's where the returns are atm. Imo beef farming is not necessarily a lazy approach - many farmers involved in producing beef cattle choose to so because that is the best enterprise fit for their farm setup and many work full or part time in addition to farming. The fact is that despite the usual hyperbole - in Ireland all forms of agriculture contribute approx 30% of ghgs. The largest proportion - approx 70% of emissions come from fossil fuel use in energy production and transport. Interestingly Ghg emissions for transport have increased by 137% since 1990 with emissions from agriculture have risen by just over 1% in tte same period. Beef produced here is exported mainly to EU trading partners and contributes to export earnings. Whether that continues is probably more down to the cartels controlling prices paid to suppliers here than real market forces.

Forestry at present is expanding mainly through the planting of commercial types of coniferous trees - adding other tree cover found in hedgerows etc brings our current tree cover to over 15%. Looks like forestry cover is likley to increase further.

Tbh I see to plenty of snakesoil salesmen and carpet bagging going on in relation to climate change at present. They just need a kick up the hole imo.

Tell me how · 30-01-2020 12:13am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So 'socialism is the solution' , heard that one before, NEXT...

What do you think is the solution?

gozunda · 30-01-2020 11:30am

An interesting overview of the greta effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVooYlyl20

And yes before we get the usual backlash - I'm aware his primarily orthodox Jewish beliefs are on the conservative side of many issues. But as far as I'm aware that's a personal perogerative.

Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Comments