Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

15152545657323

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Someone posted a twitter link here earlier and I came across this....

    https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1058733969938747392?s=20

    Strangely - reminds me of this with some small differences ...




    Greta: (Let's repeat) "for everyone out there "-it is time for civil disobedience - it is time to rebel. All together: "It's time for civil disobedience - it is time to rebel"

    Brian: "you've got to think for yourselves - you are all individuals." All together: "Yes we are all individuals"

    ....


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    this issue has been front and centre of global media pretty consistently for at least the last 30 years. i was taught it in school 20 years ago. we dont need Greta to highlight anything, thanks.

    And what harm is she doing anyone? We really do need the issues highlighted as much as possible because it's looking like all of this isn't going to end well.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    And what harm is she doing anyone? We really do need the issues highlighted as much as possible because it's looking like all of this isn't going to end well.

    There are many great minds at work funded by giant corporations trying to come up with various products and technologies that will bring about a greener lifestyle.
    To them saving the planet is a bonus. The real prize is mass adoption leading to profit. Global scale.

    Solar,hydro, electric and many other ways

    Capitalism and human ingenuity will eventually get us out of this mess. Or else we all die


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Capitalism is what's causing this mess


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    Capitalism is what's causing this mess

    And it's the only hope we have of getting out of it. Profit. Profit from green technology. Otherwise there is no appetite to change

    Did you know that there are mechanical trees now? Much more efficient and cheap to run. A Dublin company is rolling out the idea in the Us. One of our own.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-carboncapture/do-mechanical-trees-offer-the-cure-for-climate-change-idUSKCN1S52CG

    Just one example of what is coming to the market


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Capitalism is what's causing this mess

    Non capitalist countries including what is the former USSR and others have an appaling track record of pollution and environmental degradation. Do not think for a moment that the current economic system here is somehow the only bete noir. China is the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases world wide. And per capita they are on par or above the EU average for emissions. But hey dont let any of that stop the ranting ....


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    I haven't paid attention to Boards for a long time, now.

    Have people copped that that fighting climate change, requires a level of direct government involvement and spending in the economy, rarely seen outside of an existential war threat?

    Bernie/AOC's Green New Deal etc.?

    That's what is different to the last 'x' number of decades of climate change warnings - but has it even taken hold in a single posters consciousness, here?

    Or are we still at the "it's too expensive to fight climate change despite the fact that it will cost us far more if we don't fight it now" stage?

    Do people still fail to realize that fighting climate change, requires completely reforming mainstream economic views, in a way that permanently ends the fetish for austerity and budget-balancing policies?

    It's impossible to mobilize the scale of economic resources needed for fighting climate change now, without doing this first - as it requires a level of direct government intervention/spending that is almost literally unthinkable to most people, today - and is especially difficult to achieve, without reforming the EU itself, too (given its bias towards austerity/budget-balancing, and lack of a central fiscal power proportional to a national government)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    KyussB wrote: »

    Have people copped that that fighting climate change, requires a level of direct government involvement and spending in the economy, rarely seen outside of an existential war threat?

    Bernie/AOC's Green New Deal etc.?
    Australia introduced a carbon tax and had to repeal it.
    France had a progressive carbon tax to reduce reliability on hydrocarbons, they have been protesting since 18 Nov 2018.

    What do you propose to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, that doesn't take food out of people's mouths?

    Aoc's Green new deal reads like less of a real resolution and more like day-care musings from a grievance studies student.
    Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

    This just means everyone except rich white men. AOC is hilarious.
    meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
    (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading existing renewable power sources; and
    (ii) by deploying new capacity;

    The problem is the intermittent availability of clean energy. Its nearly impossible to have more than a certain amount of the grid dependent on 'clean' power, depending on the region it's about 30-40%. As soon as it goes over , the price vastly increases because the supply of clean energy is intermittent.

    What really would be a game changer for climate change is when someone (possibly the chinese) invent a new battery that can make better use of the clean energy that we can harvest. Then we can really start producing wind farms/solar cells etc.. Also I heard James Dyson bought out a company developing a new solid state battery and has been working on it for a few years now. Quite a considerable amount of cash invested in the project.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    gozunda wrote: »
    Non capitalist countries including what is the former USSR and others have an appaling track record of pollution and environmental degradation. Do not think for a moment that the current economic system here is somehow the only bete noir. China is the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases world wide. And per capita they are on par or above the EU average for emissions. But hey dont let any of that stop the ranting ....

    And the Chinese have not even reached peak Car ownership yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭joe40


    KyussB wrote: »
    I haven't paid attention to Boards for a long time, now.

    Have people copped that that fighting climate change, requires a level of direct government involvement and spending in the economy, rarely seen outside of an existential war threat?

    Bernie/AOC's Green New Deal etc.?

    That's what is different to the last 'x' number of decades of climate change warnings - but has it even taken hold in a single posters consciousness, here?

    Or are we still at the "it's too expensive to fight climate change despite the fact that it will cost us far more if we don't fight it now" stage?

    Do people still fail to realize that fighting climate change, requires completely reforming mainstream economic views, in a way that permanently ends the fetish for austerity and budget-balancing policies?

    It's impossible to mobilize the scale of economic resources needed for fighting climate change now, without doing this first - as it requires a level of direct government intervention/spending that is almost literally unthinkable to most people, today - and is especially difficult to achieve, without reforming the EU itself, too (given its bias towards austerity/budget-balancing, and lack of a central fiscal power proportional to a national government)

    You're probably right and not only large scale government intervention, change in economic models but this also has to be on a global level.

    I think it is probably too late.

    Your "time of war" analogy is good but in that scenario there is an obvious enemy. In this case the enemy is basically our lifestyle and our reliance on fossil fuels.
    I'm no saint, I'm not willing to unilaterally give up my lifestyle since that will have no effect.
    At this stage individual actions by a minority of the population are token gestures there needs to be international global action.

    Technological advances in renewables will happen, but there is still large scale opposition to any change.

    It is analogous to a smoker saying I'll stop when a tumour is detected.
    That is us with climate change, when it becomes obvious it will be too late.
    Maybe we're already at that stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,343 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    this issue has been front and centre of global media pretty consistently for at least the last 30 years. i was taught it in school 20 years ago. we dont need Greta to highlight anything, thanks.
    So just ignore it. This thread would have fallen off to page 10 by now if it wasn't for all the rabid "anti-Greta" (or whatever you want to call yourself) people.

    People really need to learn to filter out things. Not everything needs your input and opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    joe40 wrote: »
    You're probably right and not only large scale government intervention, change in economic models but this also has to be on a global level.

    I think it is probably too late.

    Your "time of war" analogy is good but in that scenario there is an obvious enemy. In this case the enemy is basically our lifestyle and our reliance on fossil fuels.
    I'm no saint, I'm not willing to unilaterally give up my lifestyle since that will have no effect.
    At this stage individual actions by a minority of the population are token gestures there needs to be international global action.

    Technological advances in renewables will happen, but there is still large scale opposition to any change.

    It is analogous to a smoker saying I'll stop when a tumour is detected.
    That is us with climate change, when it becomes obvious it will be too late.
    Maybe we're already at that stage.

    If you really believed this alarmist scenario you are presenting then you would change your lifestyle. Is it not urgent enough for you yet?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    The recent podcast on the environment in Eamon Dunphy"s show was frankly terrifying. I mean all you climate change deniers surely know the earth is finite and everything is disappearing rapidly? Forests, wildlife etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,199 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    joe40 wrote: »
    ction.
    It is analogous to a smoker saying I'll stop when a tumour is detected.
    That is us with climate change, when it becomes obvious it will be too late.
    Maybe we're already at that stage.
    The recent podcast on the environment in Eamon Dunphy"s show was frankly terrifying. I mean all you climate change deniers surely know the earth is finite and everything is disappearing rapidly? Forests, wildlife etc.

    Hi Joe, Monk, Anyone,

    Joe asked a few pages ago about examples of what needs to be done to save the planet (Without knowing the target).

    I posted two scenario with a 5% target and an 80% target for CO2 emissions.
    Yes it was a bit sensational (Or maybe not :eek:), but this was to highlight the need for a target to understand what needs to be done.

    So Joe, says we should work to the current target set by the scientists?

    Do you know what this target is?
    Do the scientist propose what actions could reach this target?

    What actions do you propose to save the planet?
    (Actions, and timeline to implement, including there impacts on the world economy and society in general)

    Thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Yep we'd need to slow the economy down worldwide probably causing a global depression. We'd need to lower our standards of living to save the planet, change our diets, and limit our lifestyles bigtime. We're not going to do any of these things however because who's going to vote for that? We'll keep going as we are until all hell breaks loose. So no one need worry, Greta isn't going to change anything, I still admire her for trying though.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    Yep we'd need to slow the economy down worldwide probably causing a global depression. We'd need to lower our standards of living to save the planet, change our diets, and limit our lifestyles bigtime. We're not going to do any of these things however because who's going to vote for that? We'll keep going as we are until all hell breaks loose. So no one need worry, Greta isn't going to change anything, I still admire her for trying though.

    Education not preaching is the answer in my humblest of opinions


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Education not preaching is the answer in my humblest of opinions

    Nah, there is no answer, we're too inherently greedy and don't think in the long term. The best thing you can do is not have kids at this stage.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    Nah, there is no answer, we're too inherently greedy and don't think in the long term. The best thing you can do is not have kids at this stage.

    Yep i agree but on a personal level if you look at the approach sky used with the Oceans and that has started to work or at least make a differance with plastics and what not


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Yep i agree but on a personal level if you look at the approach sky used with the Oceans and that has started to work or at least make a differance with plastics and what not

    We're producing more and more plastic by the day, apparently the amount is going to double in the coming years too. We're drowning ourselves in the stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    The recent podcast on the environment in Eamon Dunphy"s show was frankly terrifying. I mean all you climate change deniers surely know the earth is finite and everything is disappearing rapidly? Forests, wildlife etc.


    You can listen to it on soundcloud here (45 minutes). Initial thoughts: It's an interview with a nuclear industry lobbyist masquerading as an NGO and Irish medias go to talking person for climate alarmism - John Gibbons. I'll finish listening when I have the time later.


    Have to laugh at the 180 degree backflip from the greens.



    Global Warming: How It All Began
    Richard Courtney
    The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue.
    <snip>
    Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that - although scientifically dubious - ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA is the world’s most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician.

    Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.

    And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible.

    So, early in her global warming campaign - and at her personal instigation - the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1). Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments. Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource. Available research funds were shrinking, and global warming had become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments. Hence, any case for funding support tended to include reference to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming. Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. Now, funds for this work are provided to most UK Universities and several commercial research establishments.


    source

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    We're producing more and more plastic by the day, apparently the amount is going to double in the coming years too. We're drowning ourselves in the stuff.

    Ye i know, but more of it is going to landfill rather than the sea. Sure it's grand once we bury it


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Kimsang wrote: »
    Australia introduced a carbon tax and had to repeal it.
    France had a progressive carbon tax to reduce reliability on hydrocarbons, they have been protesting since 18 Nov 2018.

    What do you propose to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, that doesn't take food out of people's mouths?

    Aoc's Green new deal reads like less of a real resolution and more like day-care musings from a grievance studies student.



    This just means everyone except rich white men. AOC is hilarious.



    The problem is the intermittent availability of clean energy. Its nearly impossible to have more than a certain amount of the grid dependent on 'clean' power, depending on the region it's about 30-40%. As soon as it goes over , the price vastly increases because the supply of clean energy is intermittent.

    What really would be a game changer for climate change is when someone (possibly the chinese) invent a new battery that can make better use of the clean energy that we can harvest. Then we can really start producing wind farms/solar cells etc.. Also I heard James Dyson bought out a company developing a new solid state battery and has been working on it for a few years now. Quite a considerable amount of cash invested in the project.
    Australia and France's efforts are pissing in the wind - they're "to be seen as doing something" effort - not a genuine effort of proportional enough scale, for actually arresting climate change.

    We need to have the entire worlds infrastructure transformed by 2030 at the latest, to be carbon neutral. Even that is too late to avoid significant climate change damage/costs. Hell, even today would be too late.

    No country is taking that effort seriously, anywhere in the world - none would achieve that at the current pace.

    It's not going to be solved by waiting for private sector actors who are incapable of commanding the necessary scale of economic resources.

    It requires governments worldwide, to engage in World War level spending and control over economies - massive R&D funding to rapidly develop the technologies needed for 100% renewable infrastructure, among much more (the list of carbon-heavy materials and practices in the world economy is very large) - and massive government spending worldwide needs to occur, to achieve permanent Full Employment through all stages of the economic cycle (see Sanders Job Guarantee), with much of the labour force used to rapidly transition economies towards carbon neutral infrastructure and retrofitting for reducing energy-requirements/carbon-emissions.

    That's only scratching the surface of the basics needed. To achieve it, requires complete and permanent abandonment of budget balancing and trending towards austerity - and becoming comfortable with "whatever it takes" deficits, coupled with fiscal policy aimed at inflation management - which means slaying dozens of myths about how economies function, along the way.

    It needs to be done/complete by 2030 at the latest - and then there will be a ton of work to do far beyond that, for the necessary technology and infrastructure and means of future growth, which eliminate much of our other destructive influences on the worldwide environment.

    We simply aren't taking the scale of this task seriously, today. We need wartime style government economic policy. If a country is under existential threat, there's no worry about "how to pay for it" at wartime - the countries full resources get mobilized and it gets done - "how to pay" restrictions only get invented when powerful groups are jockying for control/power within peacetime economies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭dvdman1


    Nah, there is no answer, we're too inherently greedy and don't think in the long term. The best thing you can do is not have kids at this stage.

    This not having kids to save carbon is very short sighted....if you live in an educated society and have the means, having kids is one way to make us all smarter...its the extra brain power thats needed to push our technology and know how.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    KyussB wrote: »
    Australia and France's efforts are pissing in the wind...

    Excellent post. Just shows the futility of everything, as nothing will be done.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,022 Mod ✭✭✭✭wiggle16


    Obviously serious changes to how we live and how we consume energy are needed if climate change is to be stopped, not the half hearted policies countries are engaging in. And others like the US who are openly disregarding it and aren't even paying it lip service (Trump's push for the US to use more coal and castrating the EPA, for example) .... but I do think it's too late to stop it now. We've done the damage, and we're not doing enough to even begin to fix it. All we can do is try to stop it getting worse. And we won't.

    Greta Thurnberg annoys me though. She obviously does not deserve the vitriol or hatred she's been recieving at all, but the hype about her just seems a bit self-indulgent. We KNOW she's not going to accomplish anything. Nothing will change on her account. Again I don't hate her or anything, it's just irritating. Why are we pretending she's going to make a lick of difference? Does it make us feel better about ourselves to believe that someone in the news is "trying to do something about it"?
    As a headline it's like "Actual scientists have been saying for decades that we are killing our planet - and this 15 year old girl isn't going to stand for it anymore!" - it's just ridiculous.

    It's an insult to the seriousness of the issue to pretend Ms Thurnberg is great for "raising awareness" about it. We've been f*cking Mother Nature up the hole too hard for too long.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    The Amazon is the perfect example of how the world works in regards to economy versus environment.
    Bolsonaro gets elected, says the Amazon is open for business. Basically time to start making money on it.
    People tell him to protect it from farmers encroaching on native land by burning away parts to create farm land. He tells them to mind their own business and he actually cuts back on the department enforces against such illegal activity.
    Now we've the vast fires created by farmers stealing protected land and the world will suffer.
    We need to stop this business first mentality but we're fighting against different levels of greed, so it's so hard. Like socialism/communism, nice idea, but it just takes one greedy self aggrandising dirt bag to turn it into a dictatorship. 'There's one for everybody', "I'm taking two".
    I honestly think the world needs to take on the Amazon and protect it. If it were an oil field Trump and Putin would be 'freeing' it already.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,370 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I would encourage anyone interested in Climate Change, for or against, to watch this address by Carl Sagan from 1990. It's very good and concise.

    I would say you should watch it all but from around 30 minutes he addresses the issues we face.

    One thing he was great at was getting people to realise just how small, vulnerable and insignificant our planet is - just a tiny dot that harbors and protects all we know.

    His point is really simple though. Earth's future can be seen by simply looking to Venus and what happened to that planet (once it had water and an atmosphere just like earth) but then suffered a runaway greenhouse effect.

    He is not alarmist about it - all he said was - to paraphrase "we can't keep putting our rubbish in to the atmosphere that has no where to go and not expect serious consequences down the line".

    Anyhow it's a good watch if you have the time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49472920

    I'm sure Leo is "deeply concerned".
    That 5m will look good on the virtue signalling CV tho ... ching ching!!!

    In reality it will just go into some corrupt Brazilians pocket.

    Now Leo, get back to having barbers flown into LA from Paris for your special haircut.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,343 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    You can listen to it on soundcloud here (45 minutes). Initial thoughts: It's an interview with a nuclear industry lobbyist masquerading as an NGO and Irish medias go to talking person for climate alarmism - John Gibbons. I'll finish listening when I have the time later.


    Have to laugh at the 180 degree backflip from the greens.



    Global Warming: How It All Began
    Richard Courtney


    This Richard Courtney that works for a coal industry journal? No vested interest there I'm sure.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    The recent podcast on the environment in Eamon Dunphy"s show was frankly terrifying. I mean all you climate change deniers surely know the earth is finite and everything is disappearing rapidly? Forests, wildlife etc.
    Terror or anger for that matter are not much use as policies, for that you need plans. You also seem to be confusing questions or doubts about certain approaches as a form of denial of anything.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement