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

Professor Moriarty

ForestFire wrote: »

Agree with the above, but think maybe my question should have been, are the rich allowed to make carbon offset payments, i.e Pollute all they like, but pay, what is to them, a tiny amount to offset this and somehow they think that they are not damaging the environment, because they paid?

It's unfair, admittedly, but if that's what it takes then so be it. Interestingly, Ireland bought 86 million worth of carbon credits in 2008/2009.

Fr_Dougal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the people who preach higher taxation are the ones that will never feel a hand in their pocket or have their own hands in the states pocket. Its so selfish and self serving , "yeah maybe these people who earn more than me should give more money so I can have more things and they can have less" , a thrillingly easy argument to make when youve never been on the other side of the fence.

Some aren’t even living in Ireland. Ffs.

AlekSmart

gozunda wrote: »

Interesting tweet that. I'd presume the entire school strike movement she refers to is also against going to school no?

Ok she said the wrong thing there but there was also gretas speech in Parliament Square in London where she called for 'civil disobedience' and for people there to 'rebel'. Rebellions and civil disobedience normally end up with people getting seriously hurt. Rabel rousing generally not a good idea imo..

Heavens...the last time I read of such shennanigans it was our own Ibrahim Halawa giving it sox in Tahir Square,Cairo....

http://irelandoncraic.com/escapefromegypt/

I wonder if Greta (or her "team") have considered the Egyptian market for the "Xtinction Rebellion" or "civil disobedience" elements of their programme ?

biko

AlekSmart wrote: »

I wonder if Greta (or her "team") have considered the Egyptian market for the "Xtinction Rebellion" or "civil disobedience" elements of their programme ?

God no, her kind of people only go after people that won't fight back.
Going after China or India is well outside their comfort zone.

Added bonus of school "strike", you don't have to go learn anything. When you're 15/16 you already know everything.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

God no, her kind of people only go after people that won't fight back.
Going after China or India is well outside their comfort zone.

Added bonus of school "strike", you don't have to go learn anything. When you're 15/16 you already know everything.

What are her kind of people?
Climate activists? Europeans? Girls?

Why should she go to China/India when there is work to be done locally? That point in fact validates her argument by agreeing that there is work to be done.

And the school thing? Seriously, shows the narrowness of your own mind to not see what this year is doing for her in terms of life experience.

Also funny how people simultaneously decry her for not attending school and also choose to ignore heavily educated scientists with the same message.

All these posts, all these posters, same basis. Hatred.
Motivation for that hatred largely coming from ignorance, selfishness, misogyny, bitterness or a combination of some or more of the above.

Beasty

Micky 32 do not post in this thread again

Micky 32 wrote: »

Tearing strips out of who, show me where i did or shut up.

Micky 32 wrote: »

You’re clearly without a doubt a drama queen.

Micky 32 wrote: »

It was a genuine request on who i tore strips out of, talking out your back end as usual.

Micky 32 wrote: »

That’s all in your paranoid deluded mind. I criticised her and disagreed about her, huge difference. Are you finding that hard to understand?

Aww are we still angry that i showed people on this thread Greta’s car? Ah bless....

Micky 32 wrote: »

Didn’t one poster already catch you out on that bs? Something about you fretting about your taxes in another forum? I could be wrong...

Micky 32 wrote: »

He’s full of sh**t, he’s just been the hero on here trying to get one over on the “deniers”. He won’t like a hand in his pocket. The cost of living in Dublin is insane as it is.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Not to worry, was a good effort ;-)

A number of you are "sailing" very close to the wind. I've issued enough warnings to attack the post and not the poster and dished out a few have been threadbanned. Keep up this "train" of discussion and you could well be joining them

Any questions PM me - do not respond to this warning in-thread

padd b1975

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Considering the energy and time that Greta is putting in to highlight climate change, I'd be very happy for her to fly first class around the world. Ditto on the train. We need her fit and good to go.

Speak for yourself there poster.

gozunda

Was just thinking that so far Gretas travels across the world and back again have included trains, (no) planes and automobiles - well except for the crews of the yacht who had to fly back and across to the US to facilitate gretas intransigence about flying.

I do wonder why she and her team do not use technology such as skype or at least advocate for an end of these far flung junkets where thousands of people have to travel from all over the world to get there.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/davos-2019-private-jets-climate-change-world-economic-forum-summit-attenborough-a8742681.html

Anyway shes heading back to sweden now where next I wonder?

Beechwoodspark

gozunda wrote: »

Was just thinking that so far Gretas travels across the world and back again have included trains, (no) planes and automobiles - well except for the crews of the yacht who had to fly back and across to the US to facilitate gretas intransigence about flying.

I do wonder why she and her team do not use technology such as skype or at least advocate for an end of these far flung junkets where thousands of people have to travel from all over the world to get there.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/davos-2019-private-jets-climate-change-world-economic-forum-summit-attenborough-a8742681.html

Anyway shes heading back to sweden now where next I wonder?

I agree. Skype and even the humble phone call can cut huge amounts of unnecessary travel.

Thelonious Monk

Greta is a figurehead and needs to show up at summits etc. Skype wouldnt cut it. It would cut it for many other things, i have a friend who flies all over Europe every week and she tells me its usually totally unnecessary.

Professor Moriarty

padd b1975 wrote: »

Speak for yourself there poster.

I always do. Anything of substance to add yourself?

KyussB

If you tried to undertake the necessary action needed for climate change, 1:1 through taxes, you will unneccesarily crater the economy. People need to avoid falling into that narrative trap.

Dakota Dan

Tell me how wrote: »

I thought you said she doesn't post anything on her FB page.....

As in comments or replying to comments. The man that’s running the page puts up posts of what she’s doing.

171170

gozunda wrote: »

Anyway shes heading back to sweden now where next I wonder?

Hopefully back to remedial class in her primary school so she can learn about the fallacy of Chicken Licken and the sky falling in.

biko

Tell me how wrote: »

What are her kind of people?
Climate activists?

You got it right on first try.

Looking after the planet is imperative and Greta haven't even addressed the real polluting nations.
Instead it's all emotive talk "you have stolen my childhood", "put leaders against the wall", hating on Trump.

It's pretty clear her agenda is not really climate, it's the old same lefty general agenda regurgitated as climate concerns.

Greta Thunberg: Climate crisis "not just about environment," but also "colonial, racist, patriarchal systems of oppression"

https://www.dailywire.com/news/greta-snaps-change-everything-climate-crisis-about-colonial-racist-and-patriarchal-systems-of-oppression-fossil-fuel-literally
https://disrn.com/news/greta-thunberg-climate-crisis-not-just-about-environment-but-also-colonial-racist-patriarchal-systems-of-oppression

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Personally, I think carbon taxes are an immediate first step. Such taxes should hit rich people more than poor simply because the rich have larger carbon footprints. Also, depending on what kind of government you elect, there would be an option to have relief for poorer people.

Well that's nonsense. The only people who get punished by a higher tax are the people working a little above minimum wages. The rich can afford the tax, the welfare don't pay it.

The actual problem is caused by population. We need to reduce the growing population to defecit for a long time. Making band aids is not fixing anything.

The Greta acolytes are sadly governed by likes and approval on social media, they do not look deep enough into causes, just see poster opportunities, fly flags to make them selfs feel good, and follow a flag that is fashionable.

If anything they are worse than the ones who do nothing, because they delude that what they are doing matters in the great scheme.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Greta is a figurehead and needs to show up at summits etc. Skype wouldnt cut it. It would cut it for many other things, i have a friend who flies all over Europe every week and she tells me its usually totally unnecessary.

As a 'figurehead' that's exactly what should be done. Not only to diminish the massive carbon footprints of these type of shenanigans. But also to lead by example and to move to promote and push these type of events to a digital platform. Also makes them more affordable to groups or interests who may live in remote regions of the world or poorer countries or even where flying (or even trains) are not readily accessible.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well that's nonsense. The only people who get punished by a higher tax are the people working a little above minimum wages. The rich can afford the tax, the welfare don't pay it.

The actual problem is caused by population. We need to reduce the growing population to defecit for a long time. Making band aids is not fixing anything.

The Greta acolytes are sadly governed by likes and approval on social media, they do not look deep enough into causes, just see poster opportunities, fly flags to make them selfs feel good, and follow a flag that is fashionable.

If anything they are worse than the ones who do nothing, because they delude that what they are doing matters in the great scheme.

I agree the notion that taxing the ****e out of ordinary working people or using same for political gain or even as is suggested the notion of 'reparations for 'climate sins' is a fast train to hell and even more scapegoating of those who always get hit the hardest when these type of ideas are billed as the solution to everything.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Well that's nonsense. The only people who get punished by a higher tax are the people working a little above minimum wages. The rich can afford the tax, the welfare don't pay it.

The actual problem is caused by population. We need to reduce the growing population to defecit for a long time. Making band aids is not fixing anything.

The Greta acolytes are sadly governed by likes and approval on social media, they do not look deep enough into causes, just see poster opportunities, fly flags to make them selfs feel good, and follow a flag that is fashionable.

If anything they are worse than the ones who do nothing, because they delude that what they are doing matters in the great scheme.

Population control is indeed part of the solution. So we ignore carbon emissions? That's about as stupid an idea as I've ever heard.

Thelonious Monk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Population control is indeed part of the solution. So we ignore carbon emissions? That's about as stupid an idea as I've ever heard.

These people who are unwilling to change anything - diet, consumption, travel, etc., just throw out the population thing as an excuse, as they are unwilling to budge on their current way of life.
The current economic model demands population growth. If we are to reduce the population the economy would be f*cked anyway and you may have **gasp** less money in your pockets. There are no easy solutions.

Professor Moriarty

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

These people who are unwilling to change anything - diet, consumption, travel, etc., just throw out the population thing as an excuse, as they are unwilling to budge on their current way of life.
The current economic model demands population growth. If we are to reduce the population the economy would be f*cked anyway and you may have **gasp** less money in your pockets. There are no easy solutions.

Yeah I know. Some people just jump in and deliberately misinterpret for a few likes. The same people who just don't want to know because it might affect their lifestyle in some way.

Greta serves a purpose but until major governments (US, India, China et al) make fundamental changes, then the outlook is bleak. Believe it or not, democracy facilitates the likes of India, Brazil and the US to pay lip service to climate change. Not that we should get rid of democracy, of course. So, it's only when ordinary people across the planet wake up and start electing people who will take climate change seriously that it will begin to be tackled. We in Ireland/EU should do the right thing anyway even if it is only to encourage other countries. And to be able to look our grandchildren in the eye and say that we at least tried.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

These people who are unwilling to change anything - diet, consumption, travel, etc., just throw out the population thing as an excuse, as they are unwilling to budge on their current way of life.
...There are no easy solutions.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah I know. Some people just jump in and deliberately misinterpret for a few likes. The same people who just don't want to know because it might affect their lifestyle in some way....

It is unfortunate that 'These people' 'Some people' who support X are guilty of Y type arguments are simply lazy generalisations. They may make for soundbites but they utterly fail to make for any type of convincing argument.

Making a generalised claim as in the first example above that those supportive of the idea of population reduction are somehow the exact same as those "who are unwilling to change anything - diet, consumption, travel, etc. is unsupported horse manure.

Also dismissing others because you fantasise that "some people just jump in and deliberately misinterpret for a few likes... who just don't want to know because it might affect their lifestyle in some way. is no better.

Tbh the number of times that the discussion has devolved into this type of frankly daft slagging match involving attributing character flaws to others viewpoints is beyond comedy. But hey nothing like a load of passionate exaggeration and superfluous use of adjectives to belabour a point. Talking about a topic and exchanging ideas or opinions is a legitimate discussion. Slagging others off is not.

I do agree there are no 'easy' solutions btw.

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

These people who are unwilling to change anything - diet, consumption, travel, etc., just throw out the population thing as an excuse, as they are unwilling to budge on their current way of life.
The current economic model demands population growth. If we are to reduce the population the economy would be f*cked anyway and you may have **gasp** less money in your pockets. There are no easy solutions.

Your argument is constantly being trotted out.

Activists: mankind is destroying the planet
Response: how about we have less population growth?
Activists: no, we needs population growth.
Response: but this very same population growth is the reason we’re consuming so much
Activists: I’m all out of ideas
Response: but why can’t we just slow population growth?
Activists: you have stolen my childhood and that of my children

Seems like activists aren’t willing to make any personal sacrifices to help the situation.

Thelonious Monk

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Your argument is constantly being trotted out.

Activists: mankind is destroying the planet
Response: how about we have less population growth?
Activists: no, we needs population growth.
Response: but this very same population growth is the reason we’re consuming so much
Activists: I’m all out of ideas
Response: but why can’t we just slow population growth?
Activists: you have stolen my childhood and that of my children

Seems like activists aren’t willing to make any personal sacrifices to help the situation.

I'm not saying we do require population growth, but the crazy consumer orientated steamroller economy you all worship needs population growth to exist, so if we cut population you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. And even if we halved the population, we'd still be destroying the planet at an unsustainable rate. Population growth is not the reason we are consuming so much.
We need to consume less and change our ways and through education and a shared level of prosperity, then birth rates would fall and even out anyway.
There's no getting around the fact that we need to change our way of life and stop the current carry on of trying to hoover up the Earth as quickly as possible. Just look around you now at Xmas time, it's disgusting, everyone just buying all kinds of crap they don't need that'll end up in the sea or rotting into the earth for centuries.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Population control is indeed part of the solution. So we ignore carbon emissions? That's about as stupid an idea as I've ever heard.

I don't think I said anything to ignore carbon emission? That's a pretty stupid interpretation of my comments. Read what I said - we need to address the source, not put a patch on the symptom

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'm not saying we do require population growth, but the crazy consumer orientated steamroller economy you all worship needs population growth to exist, so if we cut population you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. And even if we halved the population, we'd still be destroying the planet at an unsustainable rate. Population growth is not the reason we are consuming so much.
We need to consume less and change our ways and through education and a shared level of prosperity, then birth rates would fall and even out anyway.
There's no getting around the fact that we need to change our way of life and stop the current carry on of trying to hoover up the Earth as quickly as possible. Just look around you now at Xmas time, it's disgusting, everyone just buying all kinds of crap they don't need that'll end up in the sea or rotting into the earth for centuries.

You'll be glad to know I've bought absolutely nothing for Christmas.

We can do both. Reduce population and reduce overall consumption. It is a fact that for every increase in population there will be a corresponding increase in the use of resources and a consequent increase in pollution and emissions. The more people on the planet the greater the overall use of resources (even in the scenario if these were to be cut drastically).

When it comes down to it budgets always get spent in democratic countires on citizens and their needs first and foremost. That's simply how it is. While there is a case for saying if we fix something - things will be better - however where governments in real time have to support a given population - then that will be at the detriment to spending on other things. The bigger the population the greater the spending.
So imo yes population growth is a real and growing concern.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

But hey nothing like a load of passionate exaggeration and superfluous use of adjectives to belabour a point.

Brilliant.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Was just thinking that so far Gretas travels across the world and back again have included trains, (no) planes and automobiles - well except for the crews of the yacht who had to fly back and across to the US to facilitate gretas intransigence about flying.

I do wonder why she and her team do not use technology such as skype or at least advocate for an end of these far flung junkets where thousands of people have to travel from all over the world to get there.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/davos-2019-private-jets-climate-change-world-economic-forum-summit-attenborough-a8742681.html

Anyway shes heading back to sweden now where next I wonder?

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I agree. Skype and even the humble phone call can cut huge amounts of unnecessary travel.

So ye are in agreement with Greta about cutting down unnecessary travel. Finally.

And yeah, I know ye are going to say, 'but, but, she has just travelled the world'.

Big picture guys. She travelled the world in an effort to raise awareness, something which was successfully done.
Do you think that salespeople, business travellers and MNC staff should no longer travel for face to face meetings?

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Your argument is constantly being trotted out.

Activists: mankind is destroying the planet
Response: how about we have less population growth?
Activists: no, we needs population growth.
Response: but this very same population growth is the reason we’re consuming so much
Activists: I’m all out of ideas
Response: but why can’t we just slow population growth?
Activists: you have stolen my childhood and that of my children

Seems like activists aren’t willing to make any personal sacrifices to help the situation.

Because, the right to have a child is one of the most fundamental basic human rights, which people have. In evolutionary terms, it is our reason for being here.

You are suggesting that it would be better to cut the population and to continue being wasteful. The majority of people recognize that we should try to reduce waste first.

And, leaving the above aside, if there was a decision to reduce the population. How would that be done in a fair and balanced manner?
Would a grand dad be told, 'Sorry, but we've decided not to treat you because you are over 78', what would happen the economy which is reliant on people to make purchases and pay taxes.

You're using what you think is a simple answer without thinking about the implications of it.

I know you are saying I am being dramatic, but how would you see it being implemented?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

So ye are in agreement with Greta about cutting down unnecessary travel. Finally. And yeah, I know ye are going to say, 'but, but, she has just travelled the world'.Big picture guys. She travelled the world in an effort to raise awareness, something which was successfully done.
Do you think that salespeople, business travellers and MNC staff should no longer travel for face to face meetings?

More erroneous attribution and misquoting?

I've said from the very start that greta could lead by example and cut down unnecessary travel. She can raise 'awareness' without traipsing halfway around the planet for sure.

If she really seeks to influence and change things then this is a no brainer. Where better to start than the hugely publicised "climate Conferences'