Extinction Rebellion Ireland

There's one thing that keeps getting missed on this thread - and in the wider debate about climate change as a whole.

We're supposed to believe that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a grave emergency and that radical action is required right now. We are also supposed to believe that this is not a pretext to allow wannabe dictators to tell other people how to live - i.e. enforce vegetarianism, force people in cars off the road, restrict people's ability to travel around the world etc. Except for the fact that this is EXACTLY what it is all about. I distinctly remember when I changed my position on nuclear electricity from anti to pro, I participated in a thread on nuclear power here, and the comments that I got back from mainstream environmentalists were ... illuminating. Depressing, but nevertheless informative. They went like:

Changing how we generate our electricity is not enough. We need to alter how we live our lives.

1. Are these the same people who turn on xmas lights and drive SUV's?
If so then maybe they should, and maybe we should put them there (force "them" to live in yurts and rely on candlelight).

Rubbish. You are trying your hardest to prop-up that failing system. What lessons would the people have learned? Nothing really. Except to expect and pressure our scientists and governemnts to pull rabbits out of their hats to meet our energy and consumerist desires. You're not clamouring for conservation, you're clamouring for nuclear power to replace oil. Do you have some relationship to the energy sector and/or nuclear power?

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS!
I do not own a car.
I have not flown by plain for years.
I do not burn coal.
I prefer to use blankets to keep warm rather than the heating.
I use energy saving light bulbs and ration my use of electricity.

And lest anyone think this is just a few cranks on a message board from 2006, note that the United States just elected an eco-feminist communist for the first time this last election cycle and the Mayor of New York just came out with a plan to "phase out" processed meats in New York City, starting with people unfortunate enough to have to go to school or work in an NYC municipal building. And of course prisoners in NYC jails, they will have be forced to "go vegan" now because vegan crap is all they're going to get.

As to why there is a "necessity" to do things like force people to go vegan and limit people's freedom to travel, and otherwise force people into artificial deprivation, but the same "necessity" does not extend to changing the conversation with regards to nuclear energy, I am reminded of the words of William Pitt the Younger. It turns out that hundreds of years ago, the young Mr. Pitt predicted precisely this problem - based on his observations of humanity.

Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants; it was the creed of slaves.

Young Mr. Pitt may well have been talking about Bill DeBlasio of New York, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez etc. "Do what we tell you - it is a matter of necessity".

We've allowed the debate on energy to be dominated by people like those I quoted from that old thread and it has made things worse, not better. Not only have we failed miserably to reduce carbon emissions, but we've destabilised our power grid and killed god knows how many bats. Not to mention wasting so much money on stupid, unreliable and damaging "renewables" that we've squandered opportunities to do something meaningful and useful.

Because in the real world, CO2 emissions from things like electricity generation can only be reduced if your country is lucky enough to have lots of hydro-power or geothermal, and/or your country uses lots of nuclear electricity.

In the real world, right now as I am writing this post, France is currently emitting 25g/kwh for the electricity that it produces, not only that but it exports power to every single one of its neighbors, reducing their CO2 g/kwh figures as well.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=FR
The reason? They use nuclear power. And it's been the same story in France, every single day since some time late in the last century.

Every. Single. Day. For at least the past 25 years.

By contrast, right now Ireland is emitting over 400g/kwh and Germany, well they seem to be having a really good night emitting only 292g/kwh - more than a full order of magnitude worse than France.

IF the threat of Climate Change is so grave, then doing anything other than what France is doing is inexcusable. Remember, Ireland's energy policies have been written by mainstream environmentalists since the days of the Carnsore Point protests back in the '70s. This is the result. Same in Germany, seem they are "uber woke" about everything over there and that includes handing the right to make their energy policies over to the likes of their Green parties and Greenpeace. The results are enormous costs for unreliable and environmentally destructive "renewables".

If "action" really is "necessary" I am more than happy to help, but I expect the mainstream environmental movement to start making sacrifices before they ask me to do so. I expect them to do the following:

1. Admit that their policies are (at best) an abject failure.
2. Admit that they've spent the last half century lying about nuclear power.
3. Then demonstrate actionable, full throated, unequivocal and verifiable support for the wholesale development and deployment of nuclear energy.

When they (Greenpeace, world Green parties, every journalist who has ever lied about a wind farm project by saying "this wind farm will power X thousand homes") begins making ideological sacrifices, I'll be happy to meet them half way and make sacrifices in my own quality of life.

Until then, whether I drive or cycle, eat meat or vegan soy protein won't make a difference if eco-fruitcakes insist on burning gigatons of fossil fuels for no reason - which is exactly what they are doing. In that situation all I can do is point out how - at best - stupid and irresponsible these policies are.

SeanW wrote: »

There's one thing that keeps getting missed on this thread - and in the wider debate about climate change as a whole.

...

Until then, whether I drive or cycle, eat meat or vegan soy protein won't make a difference if eco-fruitcakes insist on burning gigatons of fossil fuels for no reason - which is exactly what they are doing. In that situation all I can do is point out how - at best - stupid and irresponsible these policies are.

It has been suggested that turning off all the fossil fuel energy generation plants tmrw or even in the short term without developing alternative technologies first would most likley propel most western economies (minus France as you point out) straight back to the stone age. Those countries not signed up to doing so such as the US and most importantly China would continue on their merry way - producing as much emissions as they like and selling the rest of us the products of their continued fossil dependent industrialisation - (funnily enough) such as "green energy products" :rolleyes:

With regard to individual responsibility - it has been suggested that for the purposes of " Individual consumer choices - the top (three) actions you can take to cut your own emissions, in order of impact, includes having fewer children (equaling, for someone in a rich country, an estimated 58.6 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per child, per year), living car-free (about 2.4 tons per year) and avoiding air travel (about 1.6 tons per round-trip transatlantic flight)."

So not only will the most enlightened countries be propelled straight back to the stone age - those countries with already declining populations will successfully wipe themselves out leaving the not so meek to inherit the earth. An interesting conundrum I think ....

Baby steps, and I think decades in the future people will think why there was no consensus to do more to preserve the planet for future generations.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Wicklow County Council has followed suit. :pac::pac::pac:

Yet in Arclow they are pumping raw sewage into the river/sea..
its just a propaganda move to show how progressive they are to deflect from their own dirty practices.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Plenty of adults who believe that the sky is falling in too.

True.

"Thems childers - you just being nasty" whaaaa
:pac:

Lol - Highlighting a funny placard is now being 'superior' to children?

But yeah I do feel sorry for the kids - They are being fed so much ****e - they don't seem to know what they are supposed to be saying or eating their vegetables ...

gozunda wrote: »

True.

"Thems childers - you just being nasty" whaaaa
:pac:

Lol - Highlighting a funny placard is now being 'superior' to children?

But yeah I do feel sorry for the kids - They are being fed so much ****e - they don't seem to know what they are supposed to be saying ...

"Hey look what this stupid kid wrote! HAHAHAHA. I'm so much smarted than a child. I'll prove it by mocking what they wrote on a sign without any actual constructive point"

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Santa, the tooth fairy and now doomsday - the end of the world. The former won't do them any harm, the same can't be said for the latter. Scaring children with hysterical doomsday brainwashing to the point where some of them get clinically depressed then using them to propagandise is pretty fu(king sick by any standard.

I wouldn't bother tbh - its just looking for a rise tbh. No ones' 'mocking' anyone tbh. The sign is funny - end of story and your points above are very relevant tbh. In a previous post I had detailed about one of the IPCC climate scientists and others had written about how this whole movement scaremongering thing was scaring children out of their wits. And yet everyone else are the bad ones when anything is highlighted.
:rolleyes:

The Greens have done quite well in England. Maybe the protests are working after all.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The Greens have done quite well in England. Maybe the protests are working after all.

"Working"? Remember, Greens want to close nuclear plants.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=GB

Ireland right now - emitting 520g/kwh for electricity.
France right now - emitting 50g/kwh for electricity.

That's an more than an order of magnitude better.

Britain is right in the middle at 283g/kwh. In all cases, lower figures are due to the use of nuclear electricity.

The record is clear - electing Greens to stop climate change is like electing Nazis to build synagogues.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

This is the second time a child pawn being used for propaganda has been has mocked on this thread.

Serious amount of insecurity questions being asked around here.

FYP.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report

Meat and dairy production uses 83% of farmland and accounts for 58% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions but only 18% of food calories. That would make you believe we need to rethink how much meat and dairy we are consuming.

There was a guy from I think NUI on Pat Kenny this morning saying the little wildlife we have left in Ireland is deteriorating rapidly. Farming is the greatest contributor to this apparently.

Is there any way farmers could change their ways or maybe stop producing as much beef as we do, or do they hold too much sway politically in Ireland? If we continue as is this country and the world doomed.

gozunda wrote: »

^^^ This. The greens are little better than windbags

It remains that transport and fossil are the two sectors which are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases globally

I dont see the usual advocates here suggesting turning off their lights or giving up their cars. All they seem to do is blame everyone else as being the cause of everything

:rolleyes:

I don't own a car and my elec bill is always tiny because I don't leave things running for no reason.

Well maybe Greta is doing something right. The wiping out of our ecosystems was first on the news on BBC last night, they were talking about it on Morning Ireland and Pat Kenny this morning, it's all over newspapers and websites. Good on her.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have no idea of the mental health history of one child in Sweden, but to say that the facts behind climate change have made her ill is akin to claiming that telling someone about cigarettes can give them cancer.

I don't know if her mental health problems, if she has any, are related to climate change and the burden we are imposing on her generation. But ignorance isn't bliss, we all need to acknowledge that our actions are leading to immensely harmful consequences for the next generations.

Not sure that it is being portrayed like that tbh.
She relates most of this stuff herself and claims it gives her special insight etc Her mother has published a book about it, details how at eight year she was told about global warming and how some polar bears were starving then stopped eating and became clinically depressed etc etc. The line that others are 'attacking' her is the usual bs. It's been endlessly hashed over in the thread already.

Tbh the greenhouse gas emissions issue has nothing whatsoever got do with her - the endless coverage and championing is just tiresome at this stage tbh.

Anyone who depends on that kinda rubbish for information or direction *shrug*

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A low protein and animal fat diet would suit governments and associated bureaucracy down to the ground. People would have just enough energy and mental capacity to work but not enough to cause them any trouble. India is a prime example of that, a society where most are vegetarian, it has one of the most disgusting tiered social structures on planet earth.

Jesus. How do you get through the day with this level of paranoia? Vegetarianism causes social inequality now.