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.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Tell me how wrote: »Not with that attitude. There is absolutely no reason why cycling infrastructure in Galway, Limerick, Dublin should not aim to mimic what has been done in dutch cities. None of those cities could be considered mountainous and even Cork wouldn't be beyond feasible.
This was Amsterdam in the 1970's versus more recently. It's the same street.
There isn’t one fcuker in Galway using the coca cola bikes.another waste of money.all shapes for the first month and nobody using them since.a small novelty for the eco sheep that wasn’t long going off them.
They should land them out to Galway metal and crush them.they are an eyesore rotting in their expensive stands.
The novelty of cycling around in the p1ssing rain wasn’t long grounding a few of the dreamers0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
. . .
You only have ideological objections to this - you don't have any actual arguments against it.
The Manhattan projects goal was to produce the atom bomb which destroyed the lives of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States government remains the only state to use nuclear weapons (including depleted uranium) against civilians. Nuclear weapons and their expanding programs worldwide are still a man made problem with an obvious man-made solution that is dispose of them. If governments won't get rid of nuclear weapons which is something fully within their control, they what makes you so sure they are going to do anything about something about ephemeral weather patterns.
Massive government funding means either massive taxation, borrowing inflation and rationing or a combination of all of the above. They were so short of materials for the war effort that consumers were restricted for the duration of the war and long afterwards in some countries. The consequence of that was the creation of the military industrial complex and continuing promulgation of wars which destroy lives and property.
Are you really that naive that you think launching a war on carbon production is not going to kill lots of people? Why not admit you want to deny the use of fossil fuels to poor people to lift them of poverty? Why don't you live the life of the Amish? The reality is that carbon emissions growth and economic growth track together and that has bought about your very high standard of living, you know that which given you access to clean water, literacy has increased, and increased life expectancy. Why would you deny that opportunity to others less fortunate than you? It's easy to sit before a group of wealthy politicians and say "how dare you" for not implementing one's desired climate policy. I imagine it's slightly harder to tell a south east Asian textile worker that she's had it too good, and we need to put the brakes on economic growth. For her own good, of course. There is more to the world outside the votes of self-hating first world urbanites.
There is a reason the green slime is pouring money into the NGOs supporting these green campaigns, they see an opportunity to get rich via wealth redistribution on taxpayer funded subsidies.
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: They Mean Business [Volume II, Act IV]
The video above features Achim Steiner promoting the Green New Deal in 2009. Back then, it was promoted as a solution to save the economy; now, it is promoted as a solution to save the climate. In both instances, its sole purpose has been to inject growth into a global economic system on the verge of collapse. The main difference today is that the Green New Deal encompasses the assigning of monetary value to nature. This will transform the global financial system itself, bringing into existence a new financial accounting system which has taken well over a decade to refine. The Green New Deal is essentially a Trojan horse for the ultimate corporate coup of the commons.
sourceNet Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Professor Moriarty wrote: »It's an opinion piece. So it's opinion. I agree with the piece I quoted. I also agree with this:
"...a carbon tax, subsidies for nuclear-power generation, an increase in research funding for carbon-capture and carbon-storage, to name a few."To "name a few" implies other remedies and there are much more required. But this opinion piece is a wonderful example of why nothing of importance will happen. The writer attacks the Green Deal. And the Green Deal people will attack people like the writer. And Donald will attack Greta and Greta will attack Trump. And useful idiots will pretend that climate change doesn't exist. So no consensus will be achieved. Which is why debates such as this thread are just ways of passing time pleasantly.
And yet you like it
Changed your mind?Professor Moriarty wrote:Excellent article...
The OP opined there were no arguments against the new glorious green new deal. I simply pointed out yes there were plenty of arguments already voiced about the green new deal Capiche?
Tbh I see very little denying going on in those articles. The most common mention of such denislism is that which is thrown at those brave enough to point out the puerile use of rhetoric and pie in the sky thinking.
But hey if anyone does not wish to engage in the discussion further - there's no skin lost evidently ...0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ajdcvhwJBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjkOrQLs5QY
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement