Extinction Rebellion Ireland

20Cent

The European Investment Bank are meeting this week to discuss investments in fossil fuels. Divesting of these investments and putting money into renewable sources would be huge. Hopefully it happens.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

Zero emissions means that offsetting other emissions, not living in a cave eating grass.

Nope. That's offsetting / reduced emissions - not 'zero' emissions - zero effectively means no emissions whatsoever. Yes that will involve --living in a cave eating grass'

Even allowing for offsetting & reduced emissions - The fact is the extinction rebellion manifesto ignores that we do not have the technology to presently suck all that carbon out of the atmosphere and are unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future. Ie 10 years to the point where civilisation allegedly goes feet up according to the alarmists.

The most basic of human needs are denied by this type of simplified thinking.

Housing you say? You can forget about that. Concrete used in construction involves significant amounts of carbon emissions as does wood based construction. It is not possible to simultaneously provide continued housing provision and 'zero' emissions. It simply does not work.

end of the road

Blazer wrote: »

IT won't make much difference if Ireland the UK and basically the rest of Europe went zero carbon by 2025 when China power producers want to build another 300-500 coal powered stations by 2030.
We're just pissing in the wind with China and India.

it will make a difference to the individual countries.
so certainly not pissing in the wind, far from it in fact.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. That's offsetting / reduced emissions - not 'zero' emissions - zero effectively means no emissions whatsoever. Yes that will involve --living in a cave eating grass'

No it won’t. The technology is there now for zero emissions. Granted there’s a storage problem.

Even allowing for offsetting & reduced emissions - The fact is the extinction rebellion manifesto ignores that we do not have the technology to presently suck all that carbon out of the atmosphere and are unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future. Ie 10 years to the point where civilisation allegedly goes feet up according to the alarmists.

Well catastrophism isn’t that helpful, I agree. We can definitely take 30 years to solve the problem provided we are solving the problem - emissions are dropping.

The most basic of human needs are denied by this type of simplified thinking.

Housing you say? You can forget about that. Concrete used in construction involves significant amounts of carbon emissions as does wood based construction. It is not possible to simultaneously provide continued housing provision and 'zero' emissions. It simply does not work.

Technology can move on.

https://qz.com/1123875/the-material-that-built-the-modern-world-is-also-destroying-it-heres-a-fix/

Potential-Monke

gozunda wrote: »

It is not possible to simultaneously provide continued housing provision and 'zero' emissions. It simply does not work.

From my limited knowledge, and I'm wide open to correction here, but doesn't hempcrete have a negative carbon footprint? Granted, it does need another material to act as the frame as it's not as load bearing, but still, your walls will take in carbon and give out oxygen, plus the acoustics are supposed to be really good.

gozunda

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

No it won’t. The technology is there now for zero emissions. Granted there’s a storage problem.
Well catastrophism isn’t that helpful, I agree. We can definitely take 30 years to solve the problem provided we are solving the problem - emissions are dropping. The most basic of human needs are denied by this type of simplified thinking.
Technology can move on.
https://qz.com/1123875/the-material-that-built-the-modern-world-is-also-destroying-it-heres-a-fix/

So according to extinction rebellions manifesto we have 10 years left. Unfortunately at present and into the foreseeable future - there is no totality of technology to extract all the existing carbon above pre industrial levels etc out of the atmosphere. And keep sucking out all the continued emissions. For certain "the most basic of human needs are denied by this type of simplified thinking" Technology can move on for sure - it always does - however it does not mean it can magic up solutions because some in extinction rebellion say so ...

gmisk

Walked through merrion square all gone bar a couple of abandoned looking tents, some pallet furniture and one big white gazebo

lleti

When are the tickets going on sale for next years event?

Beechwoodspark

gmisk wrote: »

Walked through merrion square all gone bar a couple of abandoned looking tents, some pallet furniture and one big white gazebo

Damn. Was planning on giving them a visit later on today to take in the camp site and mingle with the protestors.

Beechwoodspark

20Cent wrote: »

Crusty hippy Mark Carney says companies that don't move to zero emissions will be bankrupted and 20,000,000,000,000 dollars will be wiped out of the world economy. (He is the governor of the Bank Of England).


400 ignorant climate alarmists sign a declaration supporting ER. (climate scientists, physicists, biologists, engineers and others from at least 20 countries including contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

What do the denialists have to offer in retaliation to the above facts

Edgware

gmisk wrote: »

Walked through merrion square all gone bar a couple of abandoned looking tents, some pallet furniture and one big white gazebo

Pity. I had happy thoughts of they being pissed on last night.

Pa ElGrande

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

What do the denialists have to offer in retaliation to the above facts

The people in denial are those that think extinction rebellion is about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, in the words of their leaders it is not. They do not have majority support it among the population and it takes surprisingly few people to block key junctions and the use of zoom lenses by the media to give the impression there are more people involved than there are. That the movement itself gets attention is more a symptom of the malaise that exists right now in the UK where more voters have lost confidence in the two leading parties (Labour & Concservatives) on account of Brexit and the indecisiveness that creates a vacuum for this self-loathing bourgeoisie cult to exist.


As for the money it is a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class who cannot avail of the energy and transport subsidies that the wealthy can. Why do you think expensive Tesla models have become so popular with company directors? What's not to like about their compensation packages, subsidies and tax reduction over the alternative. The upper middle class want a rollout of super chargers for their jaunt across the country. Maybe electric is the future, however charging people who can't use the service to subsidise those that can is not a fair outcome.


When you see central banks getting involved in "green bonds" - who ultimately has to work to pay the taxes? Remember that to work you have to consume resources, which ultimately the extinction rebellion is against.

Beechwoodspark

Green taxes and levies on carbon heavy activity are the coming thing to be honest. Wish it wasn’t necessary but it is. There’s no conspiracy here. It’s a reaction to the climate situation.

railer201

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Green taxes and levies on carbon heavy activity are the coming thing to be honest. Wish it wasn’t necessary but it is. There’s no conspiracy here. It’s a reaction to the climate situation.

Yep, there's a lot of money to be (a) collected from taxes and (b) made from green home improvements, electric cars etc., No conspiracy but very convenient, not a word about reducing the world's population though - not many votes or much dosh in that one.

Pa ElGrande

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Green taxes and levies on carbon heavy activity are the coming thing to be honest. Wish it wasn’t necessary but it is. There’s no conspiracy here. It’s a reaction to the climate situation.

Do you not expect a counter reaction from those who are marked for unemployment as a result, or maybe the middle class Bourgeois should pay more attention to the carbon footprint generated making their wine as the cold weather seems to be setting new records. (1)(2)(3). Of course there is no conspiracy hot weather in Summer is climate change while cold weather events are long term statistical averages.

The conspiracy is net zero carbon emissions, It is not the elimination of carbon dioxide in production. In other words the costs get imposed on those with lower incomes, while those on the top income scale think they can buy their way to heaven using indulgences while overall benefiting from income generated by skimming from the carbon credit system and subsidies through tax efficient foundations and schemes. The key phrase in climate activist circles for 2019 is climate finance.

Thelonious Monk

railer201 wrote: »

Yep, there's a lot of money to be (a) collected from taxes and (b) made from green home improvements, electric cars etc., No conspiracy but very convenient, not a word about reducing the world's population though - not many votes or much dosh in that one.

Correct, there would he no votes in it, any politician who suggested it would be written off as a mad Malthusian lunatic. So its a non runner. Plus even if we reduce our population and carry on consuming as is, we will still be destroying the earth anyway just at a slower pace.

Micky 32

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Green taxes and levies on carbon heavy activity are the coming thing to be honest. Wish it wasn’t necessary but it is. There’s no conspiracy here. It’s a reaction to the climate situation.

Not as much as you and your ER click would like. A couple of reasons. You can only tax people so much until you begin to have diminishing returns which would destroy the economy. Secondly posh boy politics, that image has to be maintained, the government won’t risk their popularity by upsetting people too much.

Look at the carbon tax, it’s a joke really and it’s just to make it look like they doing something but in reality they aren’t.

Fast forward to 2030 at 80 euro a tonne it will only cost an average car 350-400 extra a year so when you factor in inflation and wages increases it won’t be a huge amount of money.

cnocbui

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Green taxes and levies on carbon heavy activity are the coming thing to be honest. Wish it wasn’t necessary but it is. There’s no conspiracy here. It’s a reaction to the climate situation.

No they aren't, they are taxes on life in a cold climate. Heating kerosene just went up with a thump. All that does is extract even more tax from me I shouldn't have to pay. I'm not going to shiver through winter as an alternative.

Pa ElGrande

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Correct, there would he no votes in it, any politician who suggested it would be written off as a mad Malthusian lunatic. So its a non runner. Plus even if we reduce our population and carry on consuming as is, we will still be destroying the earth anyway just at a slower pace.

It is discussed, sometimes directly like Bernie Sanders recently did, most often though the subject of population control is clothed in euphemisms like reproductive health, even infanticide is now being classed as post-birth abortion by those pushing for its legalisation.

Is not a country overpopulated when its standards are lower than they would be if its numbers were less? In that case the question of what numbers are desirable arises long before starvation sets in, and even before the level of life begins to fall. Perhaps we have already sacrificed too much to population. For is not the improvement in the average conditions of life during the past century very small in comparison with the extraordinary material progress of that period? Does it not seem that the greater part of man's achievements are already swallowed up in the support of mere numbers?

It is easy to understand the distaste provoked by particular methods, and the fear inspired by any proposal to modify the laissez-faire of Nature, and to bring the workings of a fundamental instinct under social control. But it is strange to be untroubled or to deny the existence of the problem for our generation.

JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES.

That was delivered by Keynes at an economics lecture at the University of Berlin on June 23, 1926. That was the mindset of the time among high society and it served to justify the slaughter that followed a decade later (Aktion T4) in the minds of its perpetrators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgpaKkrZex4

Ultimately the question for extinction rebellion supporters boils down to whose grandchild are you trying to prevent from being born? Yours or mine?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Not really sure how we have got onto eugenics. Presumably any population control that is countenanced here would be via choice and birth control. Not that most environmentalists talk much about population.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

gozunda wrote: »

So according to extinction rebellions manifesto we have 10 years left. Unfortunately at present and into the foreseeable future - there is no totality of technology to extract all the existing carbon above pre industrial levels etc out of the atmosphere. And keep sucking out all the continued emissions. For certain "the most basic of human needs are denied by this type of simplified thinking" Technology can move on for sure - it always does - however it does not mean it can magic up solutions because some in extinction rebellion say so ...

Yes they are too catastrophic. Both sides get nothing done, meanwhile the solution will be a technological one.

I’m not a fan of carbon taxes unless there’s an alternative.

NIMAN

Would a 'no child benefit for any more than 2/3 kid's' not be a good policy to have?

Is it not time we tried to control the amount of people on the planet?

Wait a minute, but aren't we being told we will end more workers to pay the pensions of the future?

lleti

Strong words from Mannix Flynn.

“Extinction Rebellion have threatened to close down the city,” he says. “Therefore they’ve threatened to damage the environment – they’ve threatened to damage the economy to get their point across. Everybody I know is doing the best to recycle and be a parent. These guys are going to sit and block traffic and have a cultural event.

Look at the so-called hard left. They’re not hard at all. They’re the wanker left. They now see Extinction Rebellion as their chance to go global. Meanwhile they’ve abandoned the working classes.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/i-am-mannix-flynn-i-am-62-i-have-come-through-poverty-prison-abuse-you-name-it-1.4043696

Calhoun

NIMAN wrote: »

Would a 'no child benefit for any more than 2/3 kid's' not be a good policy to have?

Is it not time we tried to control the amount of people on the planet?

Wait a minute, but aren't we being told we will end more workers to pay the pensions of the future?

The catch 22 is that you need to replace the older workforce retiring to prop up your social welfare system. If you don't do that you are forced to bring in population replacements from overseas.

The big question you then get to is why would you outsource your breeding so to speak. That will create bigger social problems than solving it.

Calhoun

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Damn. Was planning on giving them a visit later on today to take in the camp site and mingle with the protestors.

You didn't take the kids over the weekend so?

lleti

Calhoun wrote: »

The catch 22 is that you need to replace the older workforce retiring to prop up your social welfare system. If you don't do that you are forced to bring in population replacements from overseas.

The big question you then get to is why would you outsource your breeding so to speak. That will create bigger social problems than solving it.

But...even the hardscore environmentalists are not saying anything about population control.

These hardcore environmentalists want capitalism to end so the pension thing wouldn't matter to them because they only care about the planet and nothing else. So why aren't they calling for it?

Calhoun

lleti wrote: »

But...even the hardscore environmentalists are not saying anything about population control.

These hardcore environmentalists want capitalism to end so the pension thing wouldn't matter to them because they only care about the planet and nothing else. So why aren't they calling for it?

Either like the article above they are mixing politics and don't care for the environment like a proper environmentalist would.

Alternatively what would be the next step after they get rid of the free market and we become a move communist state.

Thelonious Monk

If we were to reduce population yes some old people may have to struggle a bit with not much pension. Do people expect all our problems to be solved without any inconvenience or graft? The loony right's fear of any kind of hardship is hilarious. Oooh less meat less flying less buying rubbish how would you all cope...

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If we were to reduce population yes some old people may have to struggle a bit with not much pension.

Oh, that’s alright so. Anyway the way to reduce population is to reduce immigration as mostly the birth rates are static.

Do people expect all our problems to be solved without any inconvenience or graft? The loony right's fear of any kind of hardship is hilarious. Oooh less meat less flying less buying rubbish how would you all cope...

Well the poor worse than the rich, for sure. Which is a problem with carbon taxes, which are regressive taxes. It’s also a form of austerity.

Carbon taxes have their place in changing behaviour from carbon to non carbon sources, but there needs to be an alternative.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

So here would be a good use of carbon taxes. Tax units of electricity that are from carbon sources and have no tax on units from carbon free wind etc.

Of course some of this you can’t control but as you look at your bill you would hope that more units are carbon free every month. So politics and politicans that support wind farms get more popular.