Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

Pa ElGrande

markodaly wrote: »

So, again, who?

My reply was tongue in cheek. Look at the groups who have attached themselves to the cause and ask yourself what are their ulterior motives? Many like to put up a front and say it's for the children, but they also call for population control so I have to ask whose children are they trying to prevent being born, theirs or mine?


I like to colour the people involved along a spectrum of green. On the dark green end of the spectrum you have the neo-maltusians, neo-eugenicists and others who see humans as parasites on earth and want the human population reduced of course they see themselves are enlightened and not subject to their own ideology.


The middle of the spectrum who rally under the moniker "climate justice" see international socialism under the auspices of the UN and income redistribution with power in their hands as members of the enlightened class , to the light green end of the spectrum that just wants a nice clean safe environment without doing anything but virtue signalling as observed by the late George Carlin " [..] environmentalists don’t give a **** about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.".

There is the dollar green part of the spectrum whose only real concern is financial, the cause is just a convenient vehicle for them, watch them they go around the world in private jets while telling us plebeians to use public transport and bicycles, while they finagle the system to optimise the tax they pay while lobbying for more tax payer funded dollars.


No doubt you can find people with ideologically pure motivation, but they are the minority. For most people climate change is just a vehicle that they use to get where they intended to go.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is George Soros a vegan? he seems to be a favourite with the conspiracy crowd.

When it comes to climate change it's usually the Koch brothers get dragged in by the left and Soros who funds left leaning politically correct causes by the right. Soros is more a vampire with Soros you have to ask what the profit motive isbecause he did not get rich by writing cheques as the many Eircom shareholders can tell you.

biko

Greta tells me Ireland has now declared a climate emergency, brought on by the Green Party

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1126561815763329024

pconn062

biko wrote: »

Greta tells me Ireland has now declared a climate emergency, brought on by the Green Party

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1126561815763329024

It's a start but the bill was introduced by Fianna Fail and not one member of the party showed up for the vote, it had to be brought forward by Eamon Ryan. In fact only 6 TD's in total showed up for the vote which shows how much our representatives really care about the most important issue that will affect this generation.

pburns

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Just replant the tropical rainforests that along with the switch over to electric car's will reverse any damages to the environment

Tropical rainforests...yes... In fact it should be no.1 priority...

Electric cars...I dunno...there are benefits but drawbacks too. Unless renewable energy becomes more than a pipedream, just swapping one set of problems for another

Thelonious Monk

Isn't Josepha trying to pass the heritage bill?

Hobosan

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

When it comes to climate change it's usually the Koch brothers get dragged in by the left and Soros who funds left leaning politically correct causes by the right. Soros is more a vampire with Soros you have to ask what the profit motive isbecause he did not get rich by writing cheques as the many Eircom shareholders can tell you.

I read a book called Dark Money on the Kochs. It mentioned that the heiress to the GoreTex founders inheritance tried to adopt her ex-husband to secure more stock for her family, as she had 3 children but her siblings all had 4.

This is the what we are up against.

Anyone that seriously believes the mega rich are going to give up their wealth by reducing emissions need to do some reading. They will adopt their ex-husbands for a larger slice of the pie...

Here's an article on it - www.forbes.com/sites/trialandheirs/2012/05/30/gore-tex-heiress-adoption-of-ex-husband-fails-to-score-more-stock/amp/

It almost backfired when her ex-husband, now 65 year old son, tried to keep the stock instead of letting her have it,which he promised he would do.

SafeSurfer

biko wrote: »

Greta tells me Ireland has now declared a climate emergency, brought on by the Green Party

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1126561815763329024

Is this the Greta whose mother claims she is such an expert on climate change she can actually see Co2?

bfa1509

biko wrote: »

Greta tells me Ireland has now declared a climate emergency, brought on by the Green Party

My question for Greta and the Green party would be how do we dig a climate emergency fallout bunker AND leave fossil fuels in the ground? Now that's an alarming predicament.

SafeSurfer

bfa1509 wrote: »

My question for Greta and the Green party would be how do we dig a climate emergency fallout bunker AND leave fossil fuels in the ground? Now that's an alarming predicament.

Declaring a climate emergency is a massive step in saving the planet if the housing emergency declaration is anything to go by!

dermo888

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The bottom line is...unless ALL countries and Governments get involved, what is the point of a piddly little country like ours making any difference?

It has to be a worldwide issue, and that is not happening AFAIS. We in Ireland can do our bit with electric cars (and carbon taxes) and so on, but if other countries deny Global Warming, what is the actual point?

While I am annoyed just as much as you, there are genuine benefits in being seen to take a lead on such matters, in terms of the technical expertise and brains involved. Its an intangible with potential for export.

AngryHippie

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Declaring a climate emergency is a massive step in saving the planet if the housing emergency declaration is anything to go by!

Especially if it changes the fundamental vectors in the actuary that dictates the cost of our day to day lives:

Climate change is no longer a hypothetical for listed companies, but, according to regulators ASIC and APRA, now a financial risk that needs to be managed. "We view some climate risks as distinctly financial in nature ... we view those risks as material, foreseeable and actionable now,” said Geoff Summerhayes, head of insurance at APRA. In a recent survey of 38 financial services companies, a third of respondents listed climate change as material risks, including flooding, reputational damage and regulatory changes, he said.

{Source - LinkedIn Daily rundown report 10/5/2019]

I'm surprised that it's only a third of financial companies here in Australia where climate extremes already are relatively commonplace, but the extreme events have been more frequent and more extreme...


Anyway.. Its hardly hysteria. and its hardly sudden....

briany

We accept that smoking cigarettes is bad for you, and will increase your chances of developing various maladies in the long term such as lung cancer, emphysema and stroke. Where did we get this information from? Scientists / doctors doing research, making observations and connections, and formulating theories from that. It's pretty much a given for those of us in the West these days that cigarettes are bad.

But when scientists and meteorologists present us with the information that climate change is not only happening but is caused by human activity, it's met with this widespread push back. Now, we have to ask ourselves why this is. Is it because experts in the relevant fields are of a lesser quality than 50 years ago such that their findings should not be trusted? Is it because fossil fuel companies are funding the dissemination of misinformation on the matter?

Blueshoe

briany wrote: »

We accept that smoking cigarettes is bad for you, and will increase your chances of developing various maladies in the long term such as lung cancer, emphysema and stroke. Where did we get this information from? Scientists / doctors doing research, making observations and connections, and formulating theories from that. It's pretty much a given for those of us in the West these days that cigarettes are bad.

But when scientists and meteorologists present us with the information that climate change is not only happening but is caused by human activity, it's met with this widespread push back. Now, we have to ask ourselves why this is. Is it because experts in the relevant fields are of a lesser quality than 50 years ago such that their findings should not be trusted? Is it because fossil fuel companies are funding the dissemination of misinformation on the matter?

We have had a good run. Let's finish the job

SafeSurfer

briany wrote: »

We accept that smoking cigarettes is bad for you, and will increase your chances of developing various maladies in the long term such as lung cancer, emphysema and stroke. Where did we get this information from? Scientists / doctors doing research, making observations and connections, and formulating theories from that. It's pretty much a given for those of us in the West these days that cigarettes are bad.

But when scientists and meteorologists present us with the information that climate change is not only happening but is caused by human activity, it's met with this widespread push back. Now, we have to ask ourselves why this is. Is it because experts in the relevant fields are of a lesser quality than 50 years ago such that their findings should not be trusted? Is it because fossil fuel companies are funding the dissemination of misinformation on the matter?

Next you will be telling us that 97% of scientists say man made climate change is real!

20Cent

briany wrote: »

We accept that smoking cigarettes is bad for you, and will increase your chances of developing various maladies in the long term such as lung cancer, emphysema and stroke. Where did we get this information from? Scientists / doctors doing research, making observations and connections, and formulating theories from that. It's pretty much a given for those of us in the West these days that cigarettes are bad.

But when scientists and meteorologists present us with the information that climate change is not only happening but is caused by human activity, it's met with this widespread push back. Now, we have to ask ourselves why this is. Is it because experts in the relevant fields are of a lesser quality than 50 years ago such that their findings should not be trusted? Is it because fossil fuel companies are funding the dissemination of misinformation on the matter?

It's not met with widespread pushback. Just a few cranks banging on about it being a socialist conspiracy by lizards or some such nonsense.

briany

20Cent wrote: »

It's not met with widespread pushback. Just a few cranks banging on about it being a socialist conspiracy by lizards or some such nonsense.

When you have the president of the USA saying that he accepts climate change might be happening but doesn't want to do anything about it for fear of economic damage, and 44 percent of Americans saying that they don't believe climate change is a real concern, then it's not just a few cranks. It's a lot of people, and some in rather powerful positions, too.

Pa ElGrande

briany wrote: »

When you have the president of the USA saying that he accepts climate change might be happening but doesn't want to do anything about it for fear of economic damage, and 44 percent of Americans saying that they don't believe climate change is a real concern, then it's not just a few cranks. It's a lot of people, and some in rather powerful positions, too.

Right or wrong that's the ratios I normally would expect in any democratic country usually a 60/40 or maybe 70/30 split in opinion, the abortion referendum in 2018 was 66% ratio. Yet looking at the citizens assembly, the attempt at deliberative democracy that is in vogue at the moment, look at the ratios in the "citizens report" which are yielding ratios between 90 to 100% agreement. These ratios are better than results you get from a market focus group trying to sell you cat food.



There is another factor you might want to think about in the push to move towards unreliable sources of energy generation. Natural climate change has generally been one of the contributing factors involved in both the expansion and collapse of human civilisations over previous millennia with warm periods marking significant expansion of and cooling periods coinciding with widespread collapse. Now this is what I want to you to consider suppose you have the bulk of the energy consumed generated by wind, water and solar sources, how will you fare when the weather changes of its own accord and these sources don't yield what you expected? My view is the states that have build their infrastructure around fossil fuels have been able to avoid famine and mitigate the effects of natural disasters and those where these resources are not available or destroyed by war are much more subject to the whims of mother nature which means famine due to adverse weather conditions.


Consider the effects of a drought in Venezuela, which generates most of it's electricity through hydro power when combined with an abusive socialist political system that mismanages resources. The Irish potato famine of the 19th century, was triggered by weather conditions that were ideal for a fungus to devastate the main food stable of the indigenous rural population while those in the urban areas who had access to other food sources and fossil fuels (i.e. coal) fared much better.

Something else to consider is the move to fossil fuels has allowed trees to recover across Europe as we are no longer dependent on wood for fuel. It is ironic that the switch to renewable energy sources would include wood burning, yet would dare you push for nuclear and the same people creating a moral panic about 1.5C warming would rather pollute the countryside and shore with wind turbines and solar panels, yet reject nuclear power generation in Ireland which has a very low footprint compared with turbines and solar panels, yet have no problem importing nuclear generated power from the UK and France.

quokula

NIMAN wrote: »

Can I ask what changes you have made to help fight climate change?

Life took over and I didn’t get around to answering this the other day, but I just wanted to say that this is a most unhelpful way of looking at things. If someone thinks we should do more to improve the HSE then the response isn’t “we’ll why don’t you train as a doctor” - to try and shout down the person who wants to improve things in this way is such an utterly cynical and hypocritical way to try and shut down debate about doing something about the crisis.

For the record, I don’t commute by car, my employer is carbon neutral, my home is on a renewable energy plan in addition to having solar panels, my current car is an ICE but I’m committed that my next car will be electric when I’m in a position to upgrade.

None of this matters in the slightest though because the actions of a few individuals means nothing without systemic changes at a societal and governmental level.

Sheeps

It's very difficult to care about spending more on higher cost cleaner alternatives when 60% of your wages go on rent, and you're also trying to save to buy a home. Also, who's going to fit the 90% of substandard rental accomodation out with energy efficient upgrades? Will it be the profit driven landlords? How much will they use it to increase their prices further?

The reactions to climate change have certainly changed a lot in the last decade. I think people see it for what it is now, and it's definitely happening. I think we should now be planning to live with it, rather than try and fool ourselves in to thinking that we can at this point prevent it.

NIMAN

quokula wrote: »

Life took over and I didn’t get around to answering this the other day, but I just wanted to say that this is a most unhelpful way of looking at things. If someone thinks we should do more to improve the HSE then the response isn’t “we’ll why don’t you train as a doctor” - to try and shout down the person who wants to improve things in this way is such an utterly cynical and hypocritical way to try and shut down debate about doing something about the crisis.

For the record, I don’t commute by car, my employer is carbon neutral, my home is on a renewable energy plan in addition to having solar panels, my current car is an ICE but I’m committed that my next car will be electric when I’m in a position to upgrade.

None of this matters in the slightest though because the actions of a few individuals means nothing without systemic changes at a societal and governmental level.

Appreciate the reply, and I hope my initial question wasn't interrupted as being ignorant or having a pop at you, cos it wasn't intended that way at all. Sometimes when you read something on the Internet, it might sound different in your head than mine.

Anyway, it does appear that you are doing your fair share, and fair play. I was just curious as how someone like yourself had made changes to try to change their carbon footprint, as you are obviously serious about making a difference.

Often we have folk who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. It happens at all levels from Joe soap to Emma Thompson.

But I think we can do nothing without governments buying in properly. If they just see it as a way to gather more tax, then we are all doomed.

Pa ElGrande

Last week: Climate change is this election's top issue. Guardian Australia tells you what you need to know.


Climate change to be decisive issue in Australian election

"Climate change is most toxic at this election for the Coalition. It hasn't had an effective policy in the area since 2009, when Malcolm Turnbull first lost the leader's job attempting to introduce an emissions trading scheme," said Kerry-Anne Walsh, a Canberra-based political commentator and author.

source

Australians flock to the polls in first 'climate election'

Australians flocked to the polls Saturday capping a bitterly fought election that may be the first anywhere decided by climate policy.

Between 16 and 17 million people are expected to vote across the vast island-continent, with the centre-left Labor party tipped for victory after six years in opposition.

Casting his ballot in Melbourne, would-be prime minister Bill Shorten was bullish about forming a majority government after a final poll showed his lead increasing.

"Today is the people's day," he said. "Be it buying a 'democracy sausage', the kids having a bit of a sugar cake or what have you, and voting."

source

It didn't work when the voters had their say and . . . Australian elections: Ruling coalition pull off shock election victory


An organisation called getup did claim one scalp targeting Tony Abbotts constituency.



Meanwhile the guardian has decided to up the dig a deeper hole and up the climate alarmist propaganda, you will now have to update your lexicon as global warming is yesterdays news.


Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment

In December, Prof Richard Betts, who leads the Met Office’s climate research, said “global heating” was a more accurate term than “global warming” to describe the changes taking place to the world’s climate. In the political world, UK MPs recently endorsed the Labour party’s declaration of a “climate emergency”.

The scale of the climate and wildlife crises has been laid bare by two landmark reports from the world’s scientists. In October, they said carbon emissions must halve by 2030 to avoid even greater risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. In May, global scientists said human society was in jeopardy from the accelerating annihilation of wildlife and destruction of the ecosystems that support all life on Earth.

Other terms that have been updated, including the use of “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks” and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”. In September, the BBC accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”


Earlier in May, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for climate around the globe, said: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”


source

Delingpole: Guardian Invents Scary New Name for ‘Global Warming’ — ‘Global Heating’

In recent years, climate alarmists have tried to backtrack on the origins of the ‘denier’ slur by pretending that they never intended to invoke Holocaust denial.

But here is Guardian environment journalist George Monbiot writing in 2006:

Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.

Maybe Ms Viner should pay more attention to Thomas Sowell on this subject:

The next time someone talks about “climate change deniers,” ask them to name one — and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called “climate change deniers”? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of “global warming.”

There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.

Sowell’s point is well made – and goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Guardian‘s new lexicon for its climate change reportage.

The Guardian is tacitly admitting that this is not an argument it is capable of winning on the science or indeed the facts. Therefore, it has decided to ramp up the rhetoric instead.

There’s a name for what it’s doing and it’s not ‘journalism’.

The word – just in case Ms Viner feels like adding it to the Guardian style guide – is ‘propaganda.’

source

2011

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Now this is what I want to you to consider suppose you have the bulk of the energy consumed generated by wind, water and solar sources, how will you fare when the weather changes of its own accord and these sources don't yield what you expected?

Regardless of how climate change will impact how well renewable energy systems perform generating enough energy to meet the demand and the load profile remains a significant challenge.

I fully support the move away from fossil fuels and have worked as an electrical design engineer for a number of years in renewables. We face a significant challenge. I don't have all of the answers, but depending on 100% fossil fuels and pretending that the problem will simply go away is not a solution.

My view is the states that have build their infrastructure around fossil fuels have been able to avoid famine and mitigate the effects of natural disasters and those where these resources are not available or destroyed by war are much more subject to the whims of mother nature which means famine due to adverse weather conditions.

Are you seriously suggesting that fossil fuelled power plants are impervious to war?

The Taliban cut power lines during their conflict and I suspect that they would have done this regardless of whether the electricity was generated from renewables or not.

Something else to consider is the move to fossil fuels has allowed trees to recover across Europe as we are no longer dependent on wood for fuel.

Perhaps you should consider that fossil fuels are finite. What is your plan for when they run out? At best fossil fuels are only a temporary solution.

It is ironic that the switch to renewable energy sources would include wood burning, yet would dare you push for nuclear and the same people creating a moral panic about 1.5C warming would rather pollute the countryside and shore with wind turbines and solar panels, yet reject nuclear power generation in Ireland which has a very low footprint compared with turbines and solar panels, yet have no problem importing nuclear generated power from the UK and France.

As it happens many "Greens" see no option other than to use nuclear power.

Last month, four municipal election candidates from the traditionally anti-nuclear Green Party in Finland published an opinion piece in which they stated that humanity no longer has the luxury of opposing nuclear power.

See link.

uck51js9zml2yt

It amazing all the hype over ice caps melting and global warming and this is ignored

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

quokula wrote: »

Life took over and I didn’t get around to answering this the other day, but I just wanted to say that this is a most unhelpful way of looking at things. If someone thinks we should do more to improve the HSE then the response isn’t “we’ll why don’t you train as a doctor” - to try and shout down the person who wants to improve things in this way is such an utterly cynical and hypocritical way to try and shut down debate about doing something about the crisis.

For the record, I don’t commute by car, my employer is carbon neutral, my home is on a renewable energy plan in addition to having solar panels, my current car is an ICE but I’m committed that my next car will be electric when I’m in a position to upgrade.

None of this matters in the slightest though because the actions of a few individuals means nothing without systemic changes at a societal and governmental level.

How is your employer carbon neutral

There is some other changes you could commit to that would seriously help

Only eat Irish produce. If Irish people would commit to this it would make real serious change
Buy as many Irish made products where possible
Holiday in Ireland only no more flying too

To say only change will come from systemic larger change then you are a hypocrite
Basically everybody needs to alter their lives and change except you
You will buy an electric car maybe
Well done

Mr. teddywinkles

briany wrote: »

When you have the president of the USA saying that he accepts climate change might be happening but doesn't want to do anything about it for fear of economic damage, and 44 percent of Americans saying that they don't believe climate change is a real concern, then it's not just a few cranks. It's a lot of people, and some in rather powerful positions, too.

That's the reason for pushback. To have any change there has to be massive downgrades to people's way of life and from an economic outlook. So no favouritism for such policies.
Hence all the plough on regardless and ignore it cause money is what matters unfortunately.
Rather depressing when ya think about it.

Wanderer78

Mr. teddywinkles wrote:

That's the reason for pushback. To have any change there has to be massive downgrades to people's way of life and from an economic outlook. So no favouritism for such policies. Hence all the plough on regardless and ignore it cause money is what matters unfortunately. Rather depressing when ya think about it.

I'm not convinced we need to downgrade our standard of living much, if at all, creating better methods of wealth distribution might help solve a lot of our environmental problems, or start addressing them at least

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

That's the reason for pushback. To have any change there has to be massive downgrades to people's way of life and from an economic outlook. So no favouritism for such policies.
Hence all the plough on regardless and ignore it cause money is what matters unfortunately.
Rather depressing when ya think about it.

many people state it is not possible to make change on an individual basis, better to let the state introduce measures that can lead to real change.
which translates as let someone else pay for it.
every last person i know who harps on about climate change are hypocrites,
1 works for a large multinational whose parent company produces weapons for the US military.
another just loves Chilean wine.

biko

Countries Doing the Most to Fight Climate Change
13. Denmark
12. Belgium
11. Portugal
10. Malta
9. Luxembourg
8. Morocco <<< Well done Morocco for being the only listed non-European country working against climate change
7. Cyprus
6. United Kingdom
5. Sweden
4. France
1-3. Nobody
https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/countries-doing-the-most-to-fight-climate-change

Wanderer78

Milo Nice Koala wrote: »

many people state it is not possible to make change on an individual basis, better to let the state introduce measures that can lead to real change.
which translates as let someone else pay for it.
every last person i know who harps on about climate change are hypocrites,
1 works for a large multinational whose parent company produces weapons for the US military.
another just loves Chilean wine.

its hard not to be a hypocrite, as not to be may mean a life of misery, possibly even death. i helped make products for the american military, majority, if not all co-workers done so as they had mortgages, kids etc etc. life isnt black or white, we dont all have equal opportunities in life, sometimes, a job is a job, a means to an end

Saw this in Cool Vids & Pics & Links YLYL 9: So Vegan I forgot to laugh thread, HT Capt'n Midnight.

and it got me thinking..


The biggest cause of global pollution is excessive production for consumerism.
Put simply this is because they produce far in excess of what is actually needed the global needs can be sustained with production levels of at lease half of their current rates.

Why?

Because of the use of “planned obsolescence” a mechanism that artificially reduces the functional life of a product such that you are forced to replace it frequently , for example a washing machine can easily be designed to run for 25-30 years, but in fact fails in as tittle as sis years, just after the five year warranty runs out! This is deliberate design function to ensure future sales of replacement product.
It is also exasperated by the fact that spares are often difficult to obtain and with many products are impossible to repair due to the design of the product that prevent basic repairs from being carried out.

LED lamps are another example, after 40 years of electronics experience, I know that LEDs have an extremely long life if the electronics are properly designed 30,000 hours plus should be expected, but manufacturers are now bringing that down to less that 10,000 by designing the power supply to fail earlier with underrated components that will fail in about 10,000 hours.
These are just two examples of domestic devices that are designed to fail before their time to increase the profit margins for businesses and their shareholders.
In other areas, millions of plastic products are made with plastics that are designed to deteriorate far quicker than necessary to produce repeat purchases,
Shoes have soles made of materials that wear much faster than they should.
Cars used to be really bad before there was a consumer backlash in the 1970-80s after many deaths caused by cars that were designed to rust quickly getting involved in crashes and causing deaths by completely crushing as they were weakened by corrosion, or in some cases causing crashes by breaking up while being driven.
Then there is “perceived obsolescence” where consumers are being pressurised into replacing stuff that is perfectly functional with the latest and greatest model, which is usually the same as the previous one except for some more go-faster stripes or similar. The fashion industry is the worst offender here.
Then there is all the “single use” plastics to reduce costs in a fast food restaurant for example, to avoid paying for someone to wash dishes afterwards.
Finally to add insult to injury, there is a whole “recycling & waste management” industry created to get rid of all this rubbish.

So the third pane of the cartoon makes a lot of sense.
People just need to know what is happening in the world, whinging about climate change is a cop out, they need to be looking at their own consumerism and the corporate greed that is feeding it.

We should be lobbying our MPs, TDs or MEPs to try and outlaw the deliberate life shortening of products and ban manufacturers from making their products unrepairable or by preventing third party repairers getting parts.
One thing would be to mandate that products display a label with their design life and their ease or repair, similar to the energy ratings they currently carry.

“A” rated devices for example would have a design life in excess of 25 years and all parts are replaceable, it can be done.
Doing this will give the consumers a chance to demand longer life expectancy and repairable products by shunning those with a short design life or not serviceable.