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

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

I figured as much.

So what’s your problem then?. I won’t have future generations contributing to global warming. If you have family and grandkids you’ll be contributing to global warming more than i ever will.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

What point? Your second paragraph?

That completely misses the point. It supposes that nothing is going to change. Ultimately, as humans, (as with all species) we are focused on maintaining our species existence so saying not having children is just ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, a glutinous population, or extinction so as to preserve the environment.

Also, your first paragraph, which is a bit manic is also missing the point. No one is suggesting that everything must be sacrificed, what is being advocated for is optimising the resources which we have while understanding that society is going to want to live with certain standards and experiences.

well you're either invested in telling everyone how you think they must behave, or you're not.

you either think the world is going to start to end by 2030 selon greta - thread subject- or you dont

this craic of wanting it both ways, and handing out a pass to people churning out kids in order to lecture everyone alive today in their name is a total cop-out

its makes it look like........the point is to control people today....not to save them tomorrow......can it be????

Micky 32

Akrasia wrote: »

Not being personal but
This is the reason we need governments to act. It should not be economical viable for an individual to drive so much and take so many transatlantic flights. If everyone consumed resources at this rate we wouldn’t stand a chance.

But it’s not even individual behavior that is the problem. There is so much more that industry could to to reduce the environmental impact of the products they make but they don’t do it because regulations don’t demand it, and it’s not economically competitive to voluntarily adopt higher regulatory standards than your competitors.

We’re all liable to party and enjoy the good times not worrying about the hangover the next day.

Well i guess that’s just tough. I won’t have you or anyone telling me when and how often i will fly.

Btw i have to drive a lot for my work.

Tuisceanch

Climate change is not the preserve of the left wing:

Who are the conservative leaders on climate change? What do they want to do about the problem? A growing number of Republicans and conservative thinkers are coming up with ideas for cutting emissions, pricing carbon, and promoting clean energy, but their approaches don’t get much attention in the media or in the political sphere. We’re setting out to change that — putting aside snark and fostering constructive dialogue.

Amanda Little, Vanderbilt professor and former Grist columnist, has interviewed key players about their proposed climate solutions and their plans for engaging their fellow conservatives:

Republican presidential candidate George Pataki, former governor of New York
Michele Combs, a Christian Coalition activist who now leads the group Young Conservatives for Energy Reform
N. Gregory Mankiw, a conservative economist who advocates a carbon tax
Andy Sabin, a Republican businessman who started the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School
Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), a Republican climate leader in the House

This information is readily available if you search on the web so I'm surprised people look to posters here for answers to their questions.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

well you're either invested in telling everyone how you think they must behave, or you're not.

you either think the world is going to start to end by 2030 selon greta - thread subject- or you dont

this craic of wanting it both ways, and handing out a pass to people churning out kids in order to lecture everyone alive today in their name is a total cop-out

its makes it look like........the point is to control people today....not to save them tomorrow......can it be????

Let's be clear. I'm not telling anyone how they must behave any more or less than you are.
I am expressing a view that we need to behave more prudently. They are 2 very different things.

I'm not getting in to simplistic arguments of 'the world is going to start to end or it's not' because it is much more nuanced than that.

Our methods and practices have impacted on the environment.
This is causing dramatic climate change which has implications for all of society.
We need to tailor our behaviour to be less wasteful and to be mindful of the environment.

It isn't that complicated.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

So what’s your problem then?. I won’t have future generations contributing to global warming. If you have family and grandkids you’ll be contributing to global warming more than i ever will.

You're using your family circumstance as an excuse for excessive behaviour and/or unwillingness to be more prudent.

If everyone was like you, and didn't have children, the human race would be gone within 100 years.
If everyone was as focused on just doing what they wanted, all future generations will suffer hardship as a result.
It's just a coincidence that you do not have children while still having the mentality in the second point.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Let's be clear. I'm not telling anyone how they must behave any more or less than you are.
I am expressing a view that we need to behave more prudently. They are 2 very different things.

I'm not getting in to simplistic arguments of 'the world is going to start to end or it's not' because it is much more nuanced than that.

Our methods and practices have impacted on the environment.
This is causing dramatic climate change which has implications for all of society.
We need to tailor our behaviour to be less wasteful and to be mindful of the environment.

It isn't that complicated.

thread subject is greta thunberg, who you have been very clear about holding as a prophet for our times

she's on record as stating the world will begin to end by 2030, no?

or do we listen to her when it suits?

if the biggest step a sinning consumer european can do to help their carbon footprint is to not create more sinning consumer europeans, why can you not bring yourself to say this?

have you not the courage of your convictions?

seems bizarrely hypocritical to me tbh.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

thread subject is greta thunberg, who you have been very clear about holding as a prophet for our times

she's on record as stating the world will begin to end by 2030, no?

or do we listen to her when it suits?

if the biggest step a sinning consumer european can do to help their carbon footprint is to not create more sinning consumer europeans, why can you not bring yourself to say this?

have you not the courage of your convictions?

seems bizarrely hypocritical to me tbh.

You are building a straw man here which I can only assume makes sense in your head but I doubt you have even assessed it in that way.

I was concerned about our excessive use of resources before Greta, as were a lot of people. That does not negate the efforts she has done, or the publicity which she has brought on the matter in recent times. The problem or solution did not begin or end with Greta.

As I said, it is a strawman argument, ignoring the reality to try to focus everything on to just what she has said when she herself points out, she is a child, how can she know how to change things. This does not negate the fact that change is needed.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You are building a straw man here which I can only assume makes sense in your head but I doubt you have even assessed it in that way.

I was concerned about our excessive use of resources before Greta, as were a lot of people. That does not negate the efforts she has done, or the publicity which she has brought on the matter in recent times. The problem or solution did not begin or end with Greta.

As I said, it is a strawman argument, ignoring the reality to try to focus everything on to just what she has said when she herself points out, she is a child, how can she know how to change things. This does not negate the fact that change is needed.

please dont project your insulting notions of my thoughts, its unnecessary and quite offensive as a habit.

i note that we now dont have to listen to greta, that people cared about the environment before greta, that greta is not the authoritative voice on any environmental issue, and that one can in fact care about the environment without, even now, agreeing with greta.

jesus but this is some ****in progress.

id invite you to just answer the question, tbh. the big one, about whether one should have kids when its such a multiplier to your carbon footprint?

its a big question, as ive said. one really ought have an opinion on it consistent with, say, the amount of time one spends wagging one's fingers at people on the internet telling them to "listen to greta" (instruction now cancelled)

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

You're using your family circumstance as an excuse for excessive behaviour and/or unwillingness to be more prudent.

If everyone was like you, and didn't have children, the human race would be gone within 100 years.
If everyone was as focused on just doing what they wanted, all future generations will suffer hardship as a result.
It's just a coincidence that you do not have children while still having the mentality in the second point.

Now as usual you are talking total b****x but i’ll rinse and repeat just incase you might get it. I am not using my circumstances as an excuse for my lifestyle. I go to the states because i have family there, i drive a lot for work, is that hard to understand? I would still do it if i had kids.

You are just trying to make excuses for your own circumstances to make you look better despite your carbon foot print will be a lot larger than mine due to kids, grandchildren, great grandchildren you’ll end up being the cause of by posting that tripe.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

please dont project your insulting notions of my thoughts, its unnecessary and quite offensive as a habit.

i note that we now dont have to listen to greta, that people cared about the environment before greta, that greta is not the authoritative voice on any environmental issue, and that one can in fact care about the environment without, even now, agreeing with greta.

jesus but this is some ****in progress.

id invite you to just answer the question, tbh. the big one, about whether one should have kids when its such a multiplier to your carbon footprint?

its a big question, as ive said. one really ought have an opinion on it consistent with, say, the amount of time one spends wagging one's fingers at people on the internet telling them to "listen to greta" (instruction now cancelled)

That post looks like five different people wrote each paragraph. It's hard to follow your point or to know are you just getting outraged for the sake of it.

I'll just answer the point in bold. Yes. If one wishes to have a child. They should do so. What a stupid question.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Now as usual you are talking total b****x but i’ll rinse and repeat just incase you might get it. I am not using my circumstances as an excuse for my lifestyle. I go to the states because i have family there, i drive a lot for work, is that hard to understand? I would still do it if i had kids.

You are just trying to make excuses for your own circumstances to make you look better despite your carbon foot print will be a lot larger than mine due to kids, grandchildren, great grandchildren you’ll end up being the cause of.

Why? Do you know whether or not I am going to have kids/grandkids?

How about next weeks lotto numbers please.

tsk tsk

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

Why? Do you know whether or not I am going to have kids/grandkids?

How about next weeks lotto numbers please.

Well do you have kids? With all the preaching from you i took a wild guess you have or you’re planning to have them. Don’t lecture me on kids please, thank you

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why does there seem to be no climate activists or alam bell scientists who could be described as fiscal conservatives / classic liberals / libertarians / conservatives, or hell even just A-political.

it seems like you take almost anyone saying this is an urgent matter and youre one or two searches away from finding them endorsing / retweeting etc... left wing political interests.

Its a genuine question, is there anybody on the right or a-political spectrum who is a credible opinion on this.

It's impossible to act at the scale needed, without massive government action - start from that position, and then ask if any of what you cite is compatible with that.

Thelonious Monk

A world where people can have a kid or two if they want, a world where we're not raping the sh*t out of the planet to fuel our ridiculously excessive lifestyles, is what I would imagine most people would want. You'd be mad to think we can continue using resources as we are. How can possibly think we can keep going as we are? There'd be nothing left i no time.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

A world where people can have a kid or two if they want, a world where we're not raping the sh*t out of the planet to fuel our ridiculously excessive lifestyles, is what I would imagine most people would want. You'd be mad to think we can continue using resources as we are. How can possibly think we can keep going as we are? There'd be nothing left i no time.

As usual more over exaggeration, yawn

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

A world where people can have a kid or two if they want, a world where we're not raping the sh*t out of the planet to fuel our ridiculously excessive lifestyles, is what I would imagine most people would want. You'd be mad to think we can continue using resources as we are. How can possibly think we can keep going as we are? There'd be nothing left i no time.

Overpopulation is the biggest threat to the planet.

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

KyussB

The people who want us to keep on maximizing our enjoyment of luxuries and resources, have as many kids as we like etc., would want us to be engaging in the Green New Deal style R&D and retrofitting of the economy - because that is the only way to keep on enjoying and advancing our quality of life, without completely fucking ourselves over in the long run.

Increased energy efficiency and plentiful energy production from renewables (which is free energy...), saves us all shitloads of money (think of the GND slapping free solar, storage and efficient heating/heat-pumps on every home - to make buildings self-sufficient energy-wise - slashing your bills to zero, even paying you for the excess energy), and as the tech involved advances, provides us with more and more excess energy to do stuff with, and pushes all of this without pushing climate change.

Right now we're so inefficient, we're fucking the planet, creating hard physical limits to how much we can do. Maximizing our efficiency (which is precisely what the GND does), allows us to use available resources far more effectively, allowing us to do far more with those resources.

It's a pretty straight-up transition to a better economy and a better world - and the root of it is all just about maximizing energy efficiency.

free energy
free money

whatll the GND deliver next week?

KyussB

Free solar panels = free energy = free money when excess is sold back to the grid.

There's more energy hitting your home every day than you have a hope of using. The GND is significantly aimed at putting in wartime-level efforts to ensure everyone can take advantage of and benefit from that.

Thelonious Monk

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Overpopulation is the biggest threat to the planet.

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

well not really, overconsumption is. If everyone consumed like your average Bangladeshi, the world would be in a lot better place. We all need to consume less, or we're f*cked.
What do you think the threat of overpopulation is anyway?

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

well not really, overconsumption is. If everyone consumed like your average Bangladeshi, the world would be in a lot better place. We all need to consume less, or we're f*cked.
What do you think the threat of overpopulation is anyway?

ok, getting closer

do i hear a decrease in standard of living from bangladesh in order for us to expurgate our sins?

what are we bid?

who's volunteering to go first?

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

ok, getting closer

do i hear a decrease in standard of living from bangladesh in order for us to expurgate our sins?

what are we bid?

who's volunteering to go first?

No. We need to lower our standards of living, if you call buying rubbish we don't need and whatnot a standard of living, or you measure your standard of living on GDP. Bangladesh is the other extreme from us, that's why I referenced them.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No. We need to lower our standards of living, if you call buying rubbish we don't need and whatnot a standard of living, or you measure your standard of living on GDP. Bangladesh is the other extreme from us, that's why I referenced them.

So you have lowered your standard of living? Tell us what you have done and what your circumstances were prior.

Thelonious Monk

Micky 32 wrote: »

So you have lowered your standard of living? Tell us what you have done and what your circumstances were prior.

Don't know if I have. But I've never owned a car and I'm 39, I cycle in and out of work, I don't eat red meat, maybe fish a couple of times a week and sometimes turkey, I do my best not to buy food that comes from outside the EU and locally if possible. I don't fly much, I try not to buy rubbish I don't need, my house has no clutter, I buy most things 2nd hand for the house etc. Is it enough? No, but I'm always trying to keep my consumption levels at a minimum, I'd never buy throwaway clothes. I don't buy into the Xmas nonsense either, Grinch, I know.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Don't know if I have. But I've never owned a car and I'm 39, I cycle in and out of work, I don't eat red meat, maybe fish a couple of times a week and sometimes turkey, I do my best not to buy food that comes from outside the EU and locally if possible. I don't fly much, I try not to buy rubbish I don't need, my house has no clutter, I buy most things 2nd hand for the house etc. Is it enough? No, but I'm always trying to keep my consumption levels at a minimum, I'd never buy throwaway clothes. I don't buy into the Xmas nonsense either, Grinch, I know.

I could actually predict you never owned a car and that you’re a vegetarian( well nearly) lol

Thelonious Monk

Micky 32 wrote: »

I could actually predict you never owned a car and that you’re a vegetarian( well nearly) lol

Not much of a prediction with all the sh*te I bang on about here though is it

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

well not really, overconsumption is. If everyone consumed like your average Bangladeshi, the world would be in a lot better place. We all need to consume less, or we're f*cked.
What do you think the threat of overpopulation is anyway?

Jesus wept.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Not much of a prediction with all the sh*te I bang on about here though is it

Well it’s easy to validate your circumstances because you don’t eat red meat and don’t need a car so it’s easy for you to preach some of the sh!te i have read on the thread.

I’d take you more serious if you were a meat eater, a driver and then gave them things up.