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

kyuss a mhic theres a real mania about your returning for ten paragraphs about neoliberalism at every opportunity

its almost as if you want to talk about neoliberalism and not climate change

KyussB

Eh? My last couple of posts don't mention NeoLiberalism - they detail the solutions to climate change in the Green New Deal, and how they fit into a Capitalist economy - which I'm elaborating on, because of posters who are worried about the Green New Deal coming from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum (with me explaining how it fits the Capitalist end, perfectly well).

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

The GND advocates massive amounts of R&D to develop the needed technology. It also advocates (in the US anyway) governments undertaking this using their own currency - and governments utilizing their own currency, can't involuntarily go bankrupt...

Where would the money go. Saudi Princes? The arms industry? Oil companies? Banks? All of the above?

KyussB

Preferably directly government employed R&D programs, similar to ones like the Manhattan Project and NASA projects leading up to the moon landings. Little-to-no public private partnerships. Anything in the private industry, can be funded by the private industry - the GND R&D should be focused on public funding and direct public employment.

windy shepard henderson

KyussB wrote: »

If you mean a transition to a Job Guarantee, then no - in fact the Job Guarantee brings economies out of recession much faster, because it is counter-cyclical (i.e. is relatively inactive when the economy is functioning well, and is way more active working to boost the economy when it is in a downturn).

If you mean a transition to a renwable-energy-based economy, then it depends on how you go about that: The massive employment and work projects needed to transition, are pretty much a direct boost to economic activity - but there is a lot of debate on whether or not economic growth needs to be suppressed, to reduce carbon emissions, while we are still developing the technology needed for a renewable economy.

My position, is that if we engage in R&D on a big enough scale, that no, we don't need to reduce economy activity or undergo any recessions - but we need to extremely rapidly develop the needed tech, so the R&D has to be undertaken at a couple/few orders of magnitiude greater level than the present, to achieve this.

`
if you were to make the changes required , it would first of all kill off the agriculture industry in this country for a start , coincided with the closures of numerous factories , would set this country into a 20 year minimum ressicision , and that's just the start of it ,

nobody is willing to put themselves in that sort of position so a re think is badly needed , to start with the agriculture argument has to go thats just a bunch of vegans using climate change to stop people eating meat :rolleyes:

KyussB

Generally if you claim some sort of bad outcome is to be expected, you need to explain how.

JRant

JJayoo wrote: »

I would like if the green party had a back bone but their leader, Eamon Ryan, just comes across as such a soft useless gimp.

They did have one guy running during the last elections which I liked, Manchán Magan.

He presented a travel show on George Hook's radio show, and he would always talk about good initiatives/projects which he had witnessed in other countries and their viability to be applied in this country.

Ryan was on the radio last weekend talking absolute guff. Mentioned retrofitting all homes with heat pump systems. Now these can cost upwards of 30K. His solution, well low interest loans for everyone to have this done. According to his own figures this would cost somewhere in the region of 30 to 40 Billion. That's a nice tidy profit for the banking industry right there.

A vote for the Greens is a vote to have your salary plundered even further.

windy shepard henderson

KyussB wrote: »

Generally if you claim some sort of bad outcome is to be expected, you need to explain how.

agri is the biggest industry in this country so to almost eliminate that for a start would be a pretty bad outcome ( and it still does nothing about the real problems like the far east or brazil )

JRant

KyussB wrote: »

If you mean a transition to a Job Guarantee, then no - in fact the Job Guarantee brings economies out of recession much faster, because it is counter-cyclical (i.e. is relatively inactive when the economy is functioning well, and is way more active working to boost the economy when it is in a downturn).

If you mean a transition to a renwable-energy-based economy, then it depends on how you go about that: The massive employment and work projects needed to transition, are pretty much a direct boost to economic activity - but there is a lot of debate on whether or not economic growth needs to be suppressed, to reduce carbon emissions, while we are still developing the technology needed for a renewable economy.

My position, is that if we engage in R&D on a big enough scale, that no, we don't need to reduce economy activity or undergo any recessions - but we need to extremely rapidly develop the needed tech, so the R&D has to be undertaken at a couple/few orders of magnitiude greater level than the present, to achieve this.

What can be asserted without evidence and also be dismissed without evidence.

KyussB

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

agri is the biggest industry in this country so to almost eliminate that for a start would be a pretty bad outcome ( and it still does nothing about the real problems like the far east or brazil )

Nobody posting here advocated eliminating that.

KyussB

JRant wrote: »

What can be asserted without evidence and also be dismissed without evidence.

The JG boosts government spending in times of recession - counter-cyclical policy like that has a long history and evidence base.

As for R&D: Nobody is prescient, you can't make claims in advance about R&D - all that has been said is that we need to engage in a much greater depth of research, if we are to resolve the technological issues I discuss, quickly.

windy shepard henderson

KyussB wrote: »

Nobody posting here advocated eliminating that.

is it not part of the green deal , re the green party here have been very outspoken about it

KyussB

Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1180104921678569473

Direct thread, here:
https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1180000492707024897

ToddyDoody

If everyone planted and paid for the protection of a tree, there'd be no problem.

I'd take a spruce.

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:

You make it out like this is between you and climate-change sceptics when in actual fact most of the resistance you and the GND encounter is from people challenging the crazy ideas you share.

For you to refuse to accept market based solutions and taxes as the solution(which many agree is already working) and infer we need a world revolution which was written by a choir of kindergarteners, is not only needless but wreckless and dangerously so.

100%Green energy; impossible.
100% job guarantee; impossible.
The GND is not a plan. It is more akin to a communist manifesto. Remember the hammer and sickle?

Build; repair; work collaboratively; provide resources; overhaul; spur massive growth;upgrade

• "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
• "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
• "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
• "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
• "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
• "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
• "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
• "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
• "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
• "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

Anyone who isn't talking the science in this debate is anti-science.

KyussB

Here I am careful to point out that the Green New Deal is based upon a transformation of capitalism, to preserve capitalism from the effects of climate change - yet other posters accuse me of being the one to bring up communism, when it's always other posters accusing me of that...

Face it: You lot don't support Capitalism, you support Oligarchy (which is anathema to true capitalism), and the preservation of the current order of fossil fuel oligarchs like the Kochs. I support Capitalism - and I provide the template, in the Green New Deal, that Capitalism needs to survive the threat of climate change (a threat which capitalism itself produces).

Nobody has challenged the ideas I put forward - they only have ideological objections, not practical ones.

There is no popular consensus that market solutions will arrest climate change fast enough, as you claim - cite that. 100% Green Energy is simply a matter of producing enough renewable energy production and storage - that still requires a lot of R&D to reduce rare-earth usage, before it's viable, but it's perfectly possible.

Nobody has suggested a 100% Job Guarantee. Do some actual reading up on the JG - it's for providing jobs when the private sector doesn't want the unemployed.

You accused me of engaging in alarmism and scaremongering earlier: That's precisely what you're doing with your 'hammer and sicle' bullshit. I'm more of a capitalist than you/others who object are - you lot support oligarchy, not capitalism.

The Green New Deal supports massive investment in science - in a R&D program that is a couple/few orders of magnitude greater than what private industry can support. Calling that 'anti-science' is bollocks. Climate change denialism is anti-science.

KyussB

For example, this is the kind of R&D that is needed - and it needs trillions of investment put into it, worldwide, in order to advance fast enough - only governments can achieve this:
https://theweek.com/articles/869461/why-remaking-heavy-industry-crucial-part-green-new-deal

windy shepard henderson

i am after pointing out points of the green deal that you didnt even know about that would set this country back 30 years for fcuk sake , get of the bloody horse this is what this entire thread is about

we are all in the same boat we all want to change things , but this ****e of using climite change to crush capitalism or turn people vegan is retarded and should be laughed at end of story

the green party are wrong in this country with there policy in agri end off
you will not get people to crush capitalism as easy as you think especially when they have long term mortgages
if paul mccartney cant get people to stop eating meat then what chance do the green party have

personally i want to see change and massive change at that that
especially in indonesia , china india and brazil where the ecosystem is being abused,

but until people stop listening to 16 year old girls with rich parents , thom yorke or the like the world is in greater danger

how about listening to the ordenary man on the street first before glueing yourself to the nearest train

KyussB

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

...this ****e of using climite change to crush capitalism or turn people vegan...

You're either not reading what I posted, or you're being wilfully thick. That you reduce what I posted, to the quoted piece, renders everything you say not worth responding to - because it looks precisely like you're stirring shit, instead of providing a genuine response.

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

For example, this is the kind of R&D that is needed - and it needs trillions of investment put into it, worldwide, in order to advance fast enough - only governments can achieve this:
https://theweek.com/articles/869461/why-remaking-heavy-industry-crucial-part-green-new-deal

That source of yours is about as extreme left as mediabiascheck goes. This is what they say about 'theweek'.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

In the specific case of this article it was all going well for the first seven paragraphs until the author suddenly switches into activist mode for the remaining 15 paragraphs.

He could have saved himself the trouble of the last 15 paragraphs with one word; taxes.

windy shepard henderson

KyussB wrote: »

You're either not reading what I posted, or you're being wilfully thick. That you reduce what I posted, to the quoted piece, renders everything you say not worth responding to - because it looks precisely like you're stirring shit, instead of providing a genuine response.

i dont give one ****e what you post says , you say the green deal is the way forward , in ireland the green party see the green deal as a way of eliminating the agri buisness full stop

you have said in several posts you back the green deal , if this happens we are back to the 1930s economically

windy shepard henderson

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

That source of yours is about as extreme left as mediabiascheck goes. This is what they say about 'theweek'.



In the specific case of this article it was all going well for the first seven paragraphs until the author suddenly switches into activist mode for the remaining 15 paragraphs.

He could have saved himself the trouble of the last 15 paragraphs with one word; taxes.

its pethic bull**** to be fair :rolleyes:

windy shepard henderson

must crush capitalism :D:D

sadly it ended in mass bloodshed less then 50 years ago i cant see things changing now

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

That source of yours is about as extreme left as mediabiascheck goes. This is what they say about 'theweek'.



In the specific case of this article it was all going well for the first seven paragraphs until the author suddenly switches into activist mode for the remaining 15 paragraphs.

He could have saved himself the trouble of the last 15 paragraphs with one word; taxes.

Media Bias/Fact Check is run by a member of the NeoLiberal 'Council of Foreign Relations' propaganda think tank - perhaps check your own fact-checkers bias?

Oh but wait, you don't give a shit about that, so long as it aligns with your views/rhetoric...

KyussB

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

i dont give one ****e what you post says , you say the green deal is the way forward , in ireland the green party see the green deal as a way of eliminating the agri buisness full stop

you have said in several posts you back the green deal , if this happens we are back to the 1930s economically

If you don't give a shit what my post says, then don't attribute views to my post that I didn't express...

windy shepard henderson

KyussB wrote: »

Media Bias/Fact Check is run by a member of the NeoLiberal 'Council of Foreign Relations' propaganda think tank - perhaps check your own fact-checkers bias?

stop skipping posts , what is your view on the green party's view on ending agri in ireland

and how the hell is it going to stop fly tipping in the oceans or cutting down of rainforests

stick to the arguments not creating more of them

windy shepard henderson

KyussB wrote: »

If you don't give a shit what my post says, then don't attribute views to my post that I didn't express...

you asked me a question i answered it , look again :rolleyes:..idiot!!!


you didn't like the answer so you tried badly to divert it on , answer my question or move on somewhere else my friend

KyussB

I haven't given an opinion on the Green Party in Ireland - neither will I - and any claims from you that I support their policies are wrong. Any policies they happen to support, which match what I put forward here, do not mean I support them.

windy shepard henderson

KyussB wrote: »

I haven't given an opinion on the Green Party in Ireland - neither will I - and any claims from you that I support their policies are wrong. Any policies they happen to support, which match what I put forward here, do not mean I support them.

i dont care about what you think about the green party in ireland

the green party in ireland are promoting the same green deal as you are which is going to destroy many livelihoods in rural ireland which i explained about 12 hours ago

again i explained it 6 hours ago and less then 1 hour ago , if you want the green deal implemented it dose not matter what you ot i think its what is put forward by the green party

you keep changing the goalposts for some reason :rolleyes:

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

Media Bias/Fact Check is run by a member of the NeoLiberal 'Council of Foreign Relations' propaganda think tank - perhaps check your own fact-checkers bias?

Oh but wait, you don't give a shit about that, so long as it aligns with your views/rhetoric...

Are you seriously insinuating that "mediabiascheck" are conspiring against "The Week" because they are a neoliberal progoganda think tank out to crush the climate change conspiracy?

You see this is where you just threw the toys out of the pram.