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

Boredstiff666

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well wherever you look there will be vested interests so i don't know how that helps.

Is the answer 42?

No because oldies do not produce kids, so if you killed off oldies you would still have same problems and no one to blame or ask to borrow money off and not pay back because you think they have forgotten. Plus there are some tasty woman who are older than 42 and that would be a loss.

Celebs are annoying as are political people and Pat Kenny so there's a start.

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

No because oldies do not produce kids, so if you killed off oldies you would still have same problems and no one to blame or ask to borrow money off and not pay back because you think they have forgotten. Plus there are some tasty woman who are older than 42 and that would be a loss.

Celebs are annoying as are political people and Pat Kenny so there's a start.

It was a reference to 'Hitchhikers guide to the the Galaxy'. I'm not a 100% against your proposal though. Mind you all humans are political so you might have to qualify that to politicians.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere

Not quite ...

Researchers say that they have pinpointed the major sources of a mysterious recent rise in a dangerous, ozone-destroying chemical.

CFC-11 was primarily used for home insulation but global production was due to be phased out in 2010.

But scientists have seen a big slowdown in the rate of depletion over the past six years.

This new study says this is mostly being caused by new gas production in eastern provinces of China.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Not quite ...





https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341

Yes I read that too. Well there's no doubt China is a big problem.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Well listening to a stupid 16 year old who is being manipulated by others with vested interest is just ridiculous and not the answer.

There is only one answer but how you do that is???????

Have to congratulate you on your ability to fit in as a new user.

Only a few posts in but feels like you could have been using the site for years.

Have you had a previous account ?

Would be nice to know some of your previous thoughts on other subjects.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have to congratulate you on your ability to fit in as a new user. Only a few posts in but feels like you could have been using the site for years.
Have you had a previous account ?
Would be nice to know some of your previous thoughts on other subjects.

Has the poster 'had a previous account'? Wtf???

Seriously what's the thing with interrogating posters bona fides on this thread? For sure it would appear that the poster has already and amply contributed here.

What about yourself Klopp? It would be great to know if you have any thoughts on gretas travels across the world? Humorous or otherwise!

Tuisceanch

https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2019/11/26/20948655/climate-change-converts-reveal-what-changed-their-minds-conservatives-democrats-republicans

Apologies for the long post but I think this is a very interesting and informative article highlighting some,perhaps,little known or understood viewpoints of conservatives in the US regarding the issue of climate change. This is also reflected in the youth wing of AFD requesting that their leadership revise their stance on climate change as well as Marie Le pen's similar shift.

Jerry Taylor, 56, was a full-throated climate change skeptic. He penned op-eds, appeared on cable news networks and worked the “entire orbit of right-wing media,” arguing climate change was not a real problem.

In Taylor’s eyes, climate change was a hoax, propagated by the exaggerated claims of alarmist liberal commentators.

Then, he says, his reality started to unravel.

First, he began to have serious doubts about the credibility of the scientific counterarguments he was citing. Then he shifted his focus, professing that even if climate change is real, the level of action required to address it would impose staggering costs that would harm the economy more than climate change itself. Eventually, he began to lose faith in that argument as well.

Today, as founder of the Niskanen Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that promotes carbon taxation, Taylor is one of a growing number of climate change “converts.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is encouraging Republicans to come up with climate change legislation to counter Democrats’ Green New Deal, saying, “Let’s have that debate instead of everybody saying we’re just deniers,”

McCarthy’s comments signal “a tipping point” for the Republican party, said Alex Flint, executive director of Alliance for Market Solutions, an organization focused on “conservative, pro-growth solutions to reduce carbon pollution.”

Bob Inglis, a former congressman from South Carolina who once doubted the science of climate change, points to Al Gore’s appearance in the 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” as the reason he thought climate change was a liberal idea that would inevitably lead to bigger government and more regulation.

Inglis credits his son and a “spiritual awakening” after a 2008 U.S. House Science Committee trip to see the languishing Great Barrier Reef for his conversion to climate change activism. But that conversion also meant the end of his political career.

He is putting his faith in young conservatives, like Nick Huey, 27, to change the culture of the Republican party.

“In my generation, they get it. They understand this is something we should be on board with,” Huey said. “But most people I talk to say, ‘I believe it, I have no idea what to do, so I ignore it.’”

The biggest source of conservative skepticism on climate change is fear of what the solution might be, said Josiah Neeley, senior fellow in energy policy at the R Street Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research organization focused on free enterprise. The phenomenon of denying problems when the solutions are undesirable is called solution aversion.

“There is a suspicion that if they embrace the idea that climate is a problem, they are going to be pushed into some liberal or big government response to the whole thing,” said Neeley, who used to doubt there was anything that could reasonably be done to combat climate change.

The worst case scenario involves societal breakdown and social instability in parts of the world that are unable to deal with extreme weather, large sea level rise and permanent drought conditions, Neeley said.

“From a risk management perspective, we should do what can to try and minimize that risk,” said Neeley.

It was this way of thinking about risk that was the “final nail in the coffin” for Jerry Taylor’s move from climate denialism to activism. Near the end of his time at Cato, Jerry Taylor met with a top risk management expert from Goldman Sachs who convinced him that he needed to look at all potential outcomes.

KyussB

Those other than myself, who view climate change as needing urgent action:
Do you view major government projects as a necessary part of the solution?

What percentage of total GDP should be allocated to government action on climate change? (lets consider this an EU-level question)

What is the amount in Euro's, which that percentage of GDP represents?

Where will the money come from - and when you tot up where the money will come from, does it match that percentage of GDP, in raw Euro amounts?

What proportion should come from taxes, without risking cratering the economy - and what proportion should comes from other sources? (What will those other sources be?)

People will know I have my own answers to all of that - but I want to see other posters on this end of the discussion, work through the economic questions - as I think that's more instructive than me stating what I think. I may 'red team' the answers a bit.

Boredstiff666

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to congratulate you on your ability to fit in as a new user.

Only a few posts in but feels like you could have been using the site for years.

Have you had a previous account ?

Would be nice to know some of your previous thoughts on other subjects.

I have never posted on this subject before and was on Boards years ago but account doesnt appear active now.

I rejoined last night out of pure boredom and saw this thread. I went down the list and decided to have a look after listening weeks ago to a woman radio host who thinks old Greta is the new Messiah.

This subject was something I was really big into when I was young when we were bombarded with such.

The underlying population boom was the problem then and is worse now but now it appears a taboo subject.

Boredstiff666

KyussB wrote: »

Those other than myself, who view climate change as needing urgent action:
Do you view major government projects as a necessary part of the solution?

What percentage of total GDP should be allocated to government action on climate change? (lets consider this an EU-level question)

What is the amount in Euro's, which that percentage of GDP represents?

Where will the money come from - and when you tot up where the money will come from, does it match that percentage of GDP, in raw Euro amounts?

What proportion should come from taxes, without risking cratering the economy - and what proportion should comes from other sources? (What will those other sources be?)

People will know I have my own answers to all of that - but I want to see other posters on this end of the discussion, work through the economic questions - as I think that's more instructive than me stating what I think. I may 'red team' the answers a bit.

There are approx 500 million Europeans and about 350 million North Americans. Maybe almost same again in richer countries?

There are about 1 billion Indians, about 1 billion Africans and about 1.5 billion Chinese. Then possibly another 1 billion poorer folk around the world.

So if the rich 1.5 billion dump their cars and holidays and become veggies, but the poorer folk who outnumber the rich by at least 3 to 1 just want to consume more and eat meat which is accelerating the worlds problems.

Then how does a few paranoid westerners taxing themselves and restricting their life styles make any difference?

Together with that you have 'big corp' wanting to sell more consumables to the poorer folk and even pushing the less poor of the poor to move to western countries to become consumers.

So your idea is good and heart in the right place, but I am afraid you are preaching and targeting the wrong people. Because the poor of the world who are the vast majority certainly aren't going to stop wanting a car or stop eating meat.

It is great that we should do something regards the environment. But taxing people on keeping warm in winter and making food more expensive will only affect the poorer of our western society. These are the ones who cause the less environmental damage and do not jet all over the world, use a 4x4 in the towns and cities or buy other luxury carbon producing items.

Poor folk live quite basic lives and produce the least carbon emissions. You make their winter fuel more expensive and food cost more by taxing a farmers diesel etc. Then that's the work of a loony with no idea or the work of sinister money making activities.

But politicians just want more and more tax money. It gives them power and looks after their friends. So any excuse to get more off us in any new way possible is a good thing........to them.

Millionaire only not

Didn’t read much of the posts but at 700 pages it’s positive no doubt !
Safe the world , cut out cheap flights and stop moving food half way round the world only for the same country to move there product back over again just ridiculous!

Boredstiff666

After the early 1970's environmental worry about pollution and burning of the rain forests there was a later fantastic discovery by 'scientists' that we are now in big trouble and are going to freeze to death in a new ice age.

In this video 'scientists' use the facts of extremely cold winters in the 1970's. In fact some of the worst on record. But today's global warming 'scientists' kind of miss this information out when they tell us that global warming is hotter each year since records began.

What happened to the cold winters in the 1970's then? You will see in the video just a few minutes in how they say that ice on the North pole is blocking sea routes year round instead of melting and it has been getting colder for the past 30 years. A new ice age was just around the corner they say.

'Scientists' were telling us this just 40 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDLRm3jhc8

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

After the early 1970's environmental worry about pollution and burning of the rain forests there was a later fantastic discovery by 'scientists' that we are now in big trouble and are going to freeze to death in a new ice age.

In this video 'scientists' use the facts of extremely cold winters in the 1970's. In fact some of the worst on record. But today's global warming 'scientists' kind of miss this information out when they tell us that global warming is hotter each year since records began.

What happened to the cold winters in the 1970's then? You will see in the video just a few minutes in how they say that ice on the North pole is blocking sea routes year round instead of melting and it has been getting colder for the past 30 years. A new ice age was just around the corner they say.

'Scientists' were telling us this just 40 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDLRm3jhc8

Well I don't think you could have been big into environmental issues at the time, in terms of activism or knowledge of the understanding of the scientific consensus, otherwise I don't think you would continue to perpetuate such a myth. I am frankly perplexed that you would, so I can only speculate that it's probably more to do with what you perceived to be true based on media reports rather than having some great insight at the time. However if you could direct me to some scientific papers at the time to support your assertion then that would be helpful.

It is accepted now, by the overwhelming opinion of climate scientist,government bodies,businesses,insurance and banking sector,energy sector,military and intelligence agencies, that AGW is real and happening now. However if you believe that this is some grand conspiracy then that would be extremely worrying because where would there be to turn? It would also be difficult for people to accept such an opinion based on nothing more than hearsay.

I really would appreciate if you could explain this strange phenomenon.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Also

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

https://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm

Climate change is happening today. Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions.

The evidence is clear and compelling. Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are warming, the magnitude and frequency of extreme climate and weather events are increasing, and sea level is rising along our coasts.

BTW I think you make some very valid points in your other posts.

weldoninhio

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would agree with that,however it is also quite clear that Ms Thunberg is an intelligent and singularly focused young woman.

I get a sense of a harder edge to her persona,both in spoken and visible elements.

I wonder how Ms T will mature,and what the 21,31 and 41 year old Greta will think of her own singlemindedness and anger when she looks back on it all in 2060 ?

The world will be gone by then according to her. I can see her having a full blown meltdown once people stop worshiping her when the next "idol" comes along. And the puppeteers pulling her strings now will be nowhere to be seen once she isn't useful to them.

Thelonious Monk

weldoninhio wrote: »

The world will be gone by then according to her. I can see her having a full blown meltdown once people stop worshiping her when the next "idol" comes along. And the puppeteers pulling her strings now will be nowhere to be seen once she isn't useful to them.

I'd say she'll just carry on with her life and study in one of the world's top universities or stay at home in Sweden. Greta gonna be fine.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'd say she'll just carry on with her life and study in one of the world's top universities or stay at home in Sweden. Greta gonna be fine.

Lol. Yup. She will definitely have the required academic qualifications required for university entry with the way she is going having dropped out of school!

Though I don't doubt there will be the usual University give away promotion of a degree or two which they reserve for popstars and other similar social media influencers :pac:

Eitherway greta has already said it's a waste of time studying ...

I reckon she is most likley to go fully ballastic at some point in the near future

Boredstiff666

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well I don't think you could have been big into environmental issues at the time, in terms of activism or knowledge of the understanding of the scientific consensus, otherwise I don't think you would continue to perpetuate such a myth. I am frankly perplexed that you would, so I can only speculate that it's probably more to do with what you perceived to be true based on media reports rather than having some great insight at the time. However if you could direct me to some scientific papers at the time to support your assertion then that would be helpful.

It is accepted now, by the overwhelming opinion of climate scientist,government bodies,businesses,insurance and banking sector,energy sector,military and intelligence agencies, that AGW is real and happening now. However if you believe that this is some grand conspiracy then that would be extremely worrying because where would there be to turn? It would also be difficult for people to accept such an opinion based on nothing more than hearsay.

I really would appreciate if you could explain this strange phenomenon.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1



Also





https://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm



BTW I think you make some very valid points in your other posts.

I have never said anything is a myth.

If you weren't around in those days how could you have known what people were worried about or believed?

Scientists have always banded stuff around and been as wrong as many times as they have been right.

Also before you listen to any scientists you should find out who is financing their research. For example the tabaco industry used to finance alternative research with obvious results.

In the same way you ought to find out who is financing an immature 16 year old to pull faces at world leaders and make damming speeches before you take what she said as gospel.

I may be older but I can say with all honesty that if anybody tells you anything there is a reason for doing so and it is always not to benefit yourself in anyway.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

...

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

I remember being made to watch the documentary on the Coming Ice Age on the old 'telly on a trolley' in School way back then ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDLRm3jhc8

There was also a book written by some scientist or other that was in my University Library. I even borrowed it to read. Cant remember what I thought of the idea then though tbh.

In recent times Schools have been pushing some similar type stuff with at least one school in the UK taking a case against being made to watch Al Gores 'An Inconvenient Truth' due to various inaccuracies portrayed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I have never said anything is a myth.

If you weren't around in those days how could you have known what people were worried about or believed?

Scientists have always banded stuff around and been as wrong as many times as they have been right.

Also before you listen to any scientists you should find out who is financing their research. For example the tabaco industry used to finance alternative research with obvious results.

In the same way you ought to find out who is financing an immature 16 year old to pull faces at world leaders and make damming speeches before you take what she said as gospel.

I may be older but I can say with all honesty that if anybody tells you anything there is a reason for doing so and it is always not to benefit yourself in anyway.

Yes hence why some of us question everything and delve into the details. Yes I'm familiar with these presumptions that we're all hanging on the words of a 16th old,advocating for veganism and eating twigs and berries and striving for a communist utopia but in reality,much like you,some of us are not so young or gullible or know nothing but this material wealth that most of the younger generation in this country take for granted. Some of us have been around and know the games people play.

Since I'm here I'll also point out that propaganda in the west is not an unfamiliar concept to me but there is a stark difference between accepting what the media report and what the underlying details reveal. I opt to explore the latter which is why I provide comprehensive material to support my position. The sad reality is that there is nothing in any way substantive to support the claim that AGW is a hoax and 572 pages in on this thread confirms that fact. What we should be concerned about in this country is having a serious discussion about the best way forward to meet our commitments to the EU and to avoid a situation where we allow this country to veer towards supporting extremist views based on nothing more than emotion and misunderstanding.

hetuzozaho

[quote="gozunda;112057856"

I reckon she is most likley to go fully ballastic at some point in the near future[/quote]

What's that mean?

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What's that mean?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=silvergatlin

:pac:

Boredstiff666

Tuisceanch wrote: »

What we should be concerned about in this country is having a serious discussion about the best way forward to meet our commitments to the EU and to avoid a situation where we allow this country to veer towards supporting extremist views based on nothing more than emotion and misunderstanding.

Yeah the government are doing that by connecting to France's Nuclear power supply. Very green but no co2 except the vast amounts on building the power stations and disposing of the waste and mothballing them.

But hey lets be green!

DublinWriter

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. Yup. She will definitely have the required academic qualifications required for university entry with the way she is going having dropped out of school!

Thunberg has already graduated from secondary education with 14 As and three Bs.

But don't let actual facts get in the way of some good ol' fashioned tabloid mudslinging. Be clever like Trump and make **** up.

Clarence Boddiker

Greta will be fine, she'll just go back to her simple, sustainable home and have a well deserved sit down on their 8 thousand euro armchairs.
She'll have plenty of money rolling in from endorsements etc not that she had to worry about that anyway as she comes from one of her countries elite, wealthy families.

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Those other than myself, who view climate change as needing urgent action:
Do you view major government projects as a necessary part of the solution?

What percentage of total GDP should be allocated to government action on climate change? (lets consider this an EU-level question)

What is the amount in Euro's, which that percentage of GDP represents?

Where will the money come from - and when you tot up where the money will come from, does it match that percentage of GDP, in raw Euro amounts?

What proportion should come from taxes, without risking cratering the economy - and what proportion should comes from other sources? (What will those other sources be?)

People will know I have my own answers to all of that - but I want to see other posters on this end of the discussion, work through the economic questions - as I think that's more instructive than me stating what I think. I may 'red team' the answers a bit.

Have you got any easier questions as I haven't got a whole government department working for me to collate the data,explore the options available,determine feasibility etc. But in short I can't help but feel that this is a real emergency and responsibility for taking action lies with the Government. I think any real solutions are going to be unpalatable and difficult to sell to the public, plus we, as a country, are reliant on political and economic alliances, so our choices are severely limited. I think that we need the US to lead on this, but I think the impeachment yesterday of Trump in the house of Representatives might backfire on the Democrats, and that's assuming the Democrats would have the courage to embrace more radical solutions.

Tell me how

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Greta will be fine, she'll just go back to her simple, sustainable home and have a well deserved sit down on their 8 thousand euro armchairs.
She'll have plenty of money rolling in from endorsements etc not that she had to worry about that anyway as she comes from one of her countries elite, wealthy families.

It's very curious that you profess to have a had a strong interest in this topic when you were a child and since that period, as the science has produced more and more data highlighting the problem, the real world events have grown more and more extreme in frequency and impact that you are now looking to undermine someone who has been so forceful in promoting awareness of the need for action on a global level for doing so.

If you said that you felt sorry for her getting so upset about this, as you did, but that she should just live her life, as you did, and she will realise that the world will keep turning and society will adapt I could understand your position.

But you, as others decrying Greta are trying to paint her as some elitist bourgeois teenager who is just being a tad dramatic with no evidence to support this. As I have said to others with similar arguments, it seems to me to be rooted in a hatred of the girl. And once again, as with others, it is unclear what is the motivation behind this hatred.

I'm not using these phrases lightly, but observing someone who is calling for action on a topic which is widely agreed needs action (as you yourself have said) and seeking to undermine her message rather than support or suggest improvements to it is very interesting.

Clarence Boddiker

Tell me how wrote: »

It's very curious that you profess to have a had a strong interest in this topic when you were a child and since that period, as the science has produced more and more data highlighting the problem, the real world events have grown more and more extreme in frequency and impact that you are now looking to undermine someone who has been so forceful in promoting awareness of the need for action on a global level for doing so.

If you said that you felt sorry for her getting so upset about this, as you did, but that she should just live her life, as you did, and she will realise that the world will keep turning and society will adapt I could understand your position.

But you, as others decrying Greta are trying to paint her as some elitist bourgeois teenager who is just being a tad dramatic with no evidence to support this. As I have said to others with similar arguments, it seems to me to be rooted in a hatred of the girl. And once again, as with others, it is unclear what is the motivation behind this hatred.

I'm not using these phrases lightly, but observing someone who is calling for action on a topic which is widely agreed needs action (as you yourself have said) and seeking to undermine her message rather than support or suggest improvements to it is very interesting.

Think you might be mixing me up with someone else?

In any case she is just some elitist bourgeois teenager, but obviously a puppet, a figurehead with a lot of power and money behind her.

As for the message, I think its all a scam.. a scam which tells the Bourgeoise "Pay more in taxes and you can keep on consuming"
Thats what we hear about climate change.."you need to pay more"
Never "we need to ban plastics" "We need to outlaw most pesticides/herbicides"
"We need to reduce air travel" "We need to move wholesale towards Organic methods of producing food"

It seems to be the case that all the proposals re climate change benefit the Capitalists and Corporations..the very people who got us into this mess.

Tell me how

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Think you might be mixing me up with someone else?

In any case she is just some elitist bourgeois teenager, but obviously a puppet, a figurehead with a lot of power and money behind her.

As for the message, I think its all a scam.. a scam which tells the Bourgeoise "Pay more in taxes and you can keep on consuming"
Thats what we hear about climate change.."you need to pay more"
Never "we need to ban plastics" "We need to outlaw most pesticides/herbicides"
"We need to reduce air travel"
It seems to be the case that all the proposals re climate change benefit the Capitalists and Corporations..the very people who got us into this mess.

Seriously? You haven't heard that message?
I'd say someone sailing twice across the Atlantic having previously travelled throughout Europe on rail and Ferry while telling people they are doing so to avoid plane journeys was a pretty strong communication of that message. No?

As for the whole taxes thing? Why then are governments worldwide so reluctant to bring in such taxes to this point?

If it's not the governments calling for action on the climate then who is it? The electorate? Is that not a quintessential example of democracy in action?

Clarence Boddiker

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously? You haven't heard that message?
I'd say someone sailing twice across the Atlantic having previously travelled throughout Europe on rail and Ferry while telling people they are doing so to avoid plane journeys was a pretty strong communication of that message. No?

As for the whole taxes thing? Why then are governments worldwide so reluctant to bring in such taxes to this point?

If it's not the governments calling for action on the climate then who is it? The electorate? Is that not a quintessential example of democracy in action?

No, if the Govt are serious about environmental issues then theres a whole swathe of policies that could be implemented. A massive reduction on Plastics being one, of course this will never happen as it might hurt the profits of the Capitalists. All we get is pushing the costs on to the taxpayer and never on big business. Consumption must never take a hit.

Tell me how

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

No, if the Govt are serious about environmental issues then theres a whole swathe of policies that could be implemented. A massive reduction on Plastics being one, of course this will never happen as it might hurt the profits of the Capitalists. All we get is pushing the costs on to the taxpayer and never on big business. Consumption must never take a hit.

Once again, this post reads like someone who wants to see action to help the environment and yet, you are here undermining the strongest climate activist in in the world right now.

Why is that?