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

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I thought you were discussing Greta and how right or wrong she is same as the scientists and what you/me/we will have to do about it?

What has any of that to do with your fear of not being able to watch porn?

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

What has any of that to do with your fear of not being able to watch porn?

Actually quite a lot because more than one person in various governments for similar reasons to the Greta/environment thing has said that porn should be restricted or banned etc. And for lots of different reasons.

But the main reason they spout such is really to make a name for themselves or they and their like may be getting something out of it.

Just as those who want to push new taxes etc for Global warming.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

What has any of that to do with your fear of not being able to watch porn?

This perhaps?

Having looked at more than 600 articles and 90 TV, radio and press ads, news clips and websites over three months, the research concludes that the alarmist language widely used to discuss climate change is likely to be having a counter-productive effect. The report argues that it is tantamount to "climate porn" by offering a terrifying, and perhaps secretly thrilling, spectacle, but ultimately making the issue appear unreal and distancing the public from the problem.

Not a fan of the above publication - but it seems kinda relevant....

Or maybe this

The mind boggles ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

This perhaps?



Not a fan of the above publication - but it seems kinda relevant....

Or maybe this

The mind boggles ...

Well that has to be deserving of some sort of award for the most tenuous links I've seen offered to try to validate a previous post.

Any wonder the mind is boggled.

Love this.

“ Please don’t try to blame me for climate change
Daily Mail5 Aug 2019
AS A dairy cow, I feel much maligned by misconceptions concerning my contribution to climate change. Plants and trees are nature’s way of dealing with carbon emissions, but this process produces cellulose, a carbohydrate you humans are unable to digest. However, I love to eat it and I convert it into milk and beef, which you enjoy as part of your balanced diet. I do apologise for the methane I produce, but have your scientists told you that this breaks down naturally and is reabsorbed by plants, thus completing a natural cycle? Because of better breeding, I produce more milk and meat than my grandparents did, so fewer cows are needed, hence our carbon footprint has actually decreased. I do wish you humans would acknowledge that 80 per cent of greenhouse gasses come from the fossil fuel-consuming industries, which include factories producing processed soya, almond and other somewhat artificial drinks masquerading as milk! PURESNOW, c/o NICK HEBDITCH, Chard, Somerset.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20190805/282741998418890

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Actually quite a lot because more than one person in various governments for similar reasons to the Greta/environment thing has said that porn should be restricted or banned etc. And for lots of different reasons.

But the main reason they spout such is really to make a name for themselves or they and their like may be getting something out of it.

Just as those who want to push new taxes etc for Global warming.

This post alone is worthy of having its own thread on the topic.
I'll leave you to it, it has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Also, Who is pushing taxes?

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

This post alone is worthy of having its own thread on the topic.
I'll leave you to it, it has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Also, Who is pushing taxes?

Carbon taxes on fuel etc?

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Carbon taxes on fuel etc?

Who is pushing them.

Tell me how wrote: »

This post alone is worthy of having its own thread on the topic.
I'll leave you to it, it has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Also, Who is pushing taxes?

Boredstiff666

Governments because various reasons. I do not know names.

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I wouldn't mind if you could elaborate on what you meant by the highlighted text.

In terms of Government Bonds / GDP



Since you know a lot about this subject can you save me the time of googling and tell me whether the EU imposes any restrictions on the monetary amount of Government bonds each member state can issue?

Sure - the EU in theory imposes restrictions, but they are not really enforceable and are routinely breached - the penalty for breaching them, is arguably less costly than following them.

When some of the debt is composed of ~0% interest bonds, and some at higher 3-5% interest bonds - does it actually make any sense to treat them both as the same?

If we expanded Debt vs GDP by 100-200% at ~0% interest - what actual problems does that pose?

Given the complete lack of nuance in Public Debt vs GDP figures - why is there an obsession with treating an arbitrary percentage of that, as 'bad'? Isn't that just a moral statement - and not one based on mathematical/accounting/economic sustainability?

If instead, we focused on maximizing the GDP side of Public Debt vs GDP (which means, letting Public Debt expand to whatever size it needs, to reach Full-Output/Maximum-GDP - which is roughly around the point of Full Employment) - and since the payments for Public Debt come from GDP/the-economy itself - doesn't that mean it's at its most sustainable, when the economy is at Full Output?

People almost never look past the thought of 'debt = bad' and the raw percentage of Public Debt vs GDP (as 'bad'), never at the interest on bonds, nor at the GDP side of Public Debt vs GDP.

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Governments because various reasons. I do not know names.

The 3 governments most relevant to Ireland for various reasons are generally our own, the US and the UK.

None of these have pushed carbon taxes, in fact, Irish government was lambasted for not bringing in carbon taxes in the 2018 budget.
The US government has a President trying to actively open coal mines.
Boris Johnson's government is expected to facilitate fracking in the UK.

So which government is pushing taxes or is it just something you heard which has made the hair stand up on the back of your head?

(For the record, I think, unfortunately, taxes will end up being necessary, either that or legislation as we have seen in the past that it takes either or both of these to change behaviour even on items which are pretty straightforward. Think plastic bag tax and smoking in the workplace ban as examples of this. Tax or no tax, the fact is action is needed, so how do we make it happen?)

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

The 3 governments most relevant to Ireland for various reasons are generally our own, the US and the UK.

None of these have pushed carbon taxes, in fact, Irish government was lambasted for not bringing in carbon taxes in the 2018 budget.
The US government has a President trying to actively open coal mines.
Boris Johnson's government is expected to facilitate fracking in the UK.

So which government is pushing taxes or is it just something you heard which has made the hair stand up on the back of your head?

(For the record, I think, unfortunately, taxes will end up being necessary, either that or legislation as we have seen in the past that it takes either or both of these to change behaviour even on items which are pretty straightforward. Think plastic bag tax and smoking in the workplace ban as examples of this. Tax or no tax, the fact is action is needed, so how do we make it happen?)

Hold on dont try and put me down.

I have heard various people banging on about how we must bring in carbon taxes on fuel even to farmers because they reckon agriculture is a big carbon producer which is totally skewed and false.

Also they are on about taxing coal but then said that they were banning smokey coal from towns, but then they were told people drive out to country and buy cheap smokey coal and bring it back to the towns/cities.

So then the shift is back to taxing such.

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

The 3 governments most relevant to Ireland for various reasons are generally our own, the US and the UK.

None of these have pushed carbon taxes, in fact, Irish government was lambasted for not bringing in carbon taxes in the 2018 budget.
The US government has a President trying to actively open coal mines.
Boris Johnson's government is expected to facilitate fracking in the UK.

So which government is pushing taxes or is it just something you heard which has made the hair stand up on the back of your head?

(For the record, I think, unfortunately, taxes will end up being necessary, either that or legislation as we have seen in the past that it takes either or both of these to change behaviour even on items which are pretty straightforward. Think plastic bag tax and smoking in the workplace ban as examples of this. Tax or no tax, the fact is action is needed, so how do we make it happen?)

Just an observation, not challenging anything in your post, nor stating you said anything contrary to the below: The taxing of plastic bags, of pollution i.e. carbon emissions, is the concept of taxing 'bads' - discouraging certain harmful behaviours, through taxes.

That makes sense, and is a universally useful purpose for taxes.

However, taxing 'bads' shouldn't be considered as a method for funding government policy - because naturally, 'bads' that are taxed, are discouraged and will collapse revenue over time - plus, if we tax present 'bads' like carbon too much, we will quite literally collapse our economy - so that's not a sustainable way to fund the necessary government policy.

So, this will mean that taxing carbon emissions, should not be mixed up with funding of solutions for climate change.

Boredstiff666

KyussB wrote: »

Just an observation, not challenging anything in your post: The taxing of plastic bags, of pollution i.e. carbon emissions, is the concept of taxing 'bads' - discouraging certain harmful behaviours, through taxes.

That makes sense, and is a universally useful purpose for taxes.

However, taxing 'bads' shouldn't be considered as a method for funding government policy - because naturally, 'bads' that are taxed, are discouraged and will collapse revenue over time - plus, if we tax present 'bads' like carbon too much, we will quite literally collapse our economy - so that's not a sustainable way to fund the necessary government policy.

So, this will mean that taxing carbon emissions, should not be mixed up with funding of solutions for climate change.

If you tax fuel you will also be really taxing the poor who are the least carbon generators.

KyussB

That depends - taxing carbon/fuel shouldn't be considered in isolation - if you combine it with subsidies for renewable alternatives, then it's a wholly different beast and can resolve that problem while still discouraging carbon.

Fine Gael will almost certainly only tax carbon, without additional policy - as it is in their interests, as a business-connected/corrupted party, to discourage/sabotage climate-change-arresting policy, by deliberately implementing it in a way that generates a backlash.

Boredstiff666

KyussB wrote: »

That depends - taxing carbon/fuel shouldn't be considered in isolation - if you combine it with subsidies for renewable alternatives, then it's a wholly different beast and can resolve that problem while still discouraging carbon.

How is increasing the price of heating oil and coal not going to affect household budgets?

How is increasing the price of diesel not going to affect food prices?

KyussB

If you have subsidies/capital-projects for e.g. renewable heat generation (solar + storage + heat pumps) - if you make food production local and don't use diesel for transporting/producing it - with appropriate subsidies and industrial/technological development, to help the transition.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Well that has to be deserving of some sort of award for the most tenuous links I've seen offered to try to validate a previous post.
Any wonder the mind is boggled.

Tennous lol? Again issues with basic comprehension there methinks. Yup both are linked with climate change. So certainly relevant.

Although as they say - if you ask a stupid question - you might not like the answer

Boredstiff666

KyussB wrote: »

If you have subsidies/capital-projects for e.g. renewable heat generation (solar + storage + heat pumps) - if you make food production local and don't use diesel for transporting/producing it - with appropriate subsidies and industrial/technological development, to help the transition.

You are dreaming. So are you forcing people to grow their own veg or are you seizing land and forcing people to work it by hand without machinery?

You obviously know nowt about farming or food production and have been listening to the wrong people.


Here is an example.......organic food is grown without pesticides etc but always costs more......why is that?

Also subsidies are other peoples hard earned tax money.........so were is it coming from?

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Hold on dont try and put me down.

I have heard various people banging on about how we must bring in carbon taxes on fuel even to farmers because they reckon agriculture is a big carbon producer which is totally skewed and false.

Also they are on about taxing coal but then said that they were banning smokey coal from towns, but then they were told people drive out to country and buy cheap smokey coal and bring it back to the towns/cities.

So then the shift is back to taxing such.

As you can see, from your own posts, there are no specifics that governments are going to tax, tax, tax. Every politician near a government seat knows that they

Just because one politician, may say 'We need to cut down on cars and maybe a tax would do this' or something similar does not mean that that is government policy.

But, once again, this is beside the point and is specifically something which Greta has pointed out. The appropriate solutions, technologies, economies are not there at the moment. They need to be created.
So, why not support someone who is saying that something which needs to be fixed should get attention in order to fix it?

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

As you can see, from your own posts, there are no specifics that governments are going to tax, tax, tax. Every politician near a government seat knows that they

Just because one politician, may say 'We need to cut down on cars and maybe a tax would do this' or something similar does not mean that that is government policy.

But, once again, this is beside the point and is specifically something which Greta has pointed out. The appropriate solutions, technologies, economies are not there at the moment. They need to be created.
So, why not support someone who is saying that something which needs to be fixed should get attention in order to fix it?

Well we live in a country whose answer to everything is tax tax tax.....but call it a 'levy'.

Whatever Greta and others are proposing it will cost money....where does it come from?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Tennous lol? Again problems with basic comprehension there methinks. Yup both are linked with climate change. So certainly relevant.

Although as they say - if you ask a stupid question - you might not like the answer

Post by post, you are proving there is no argument against Greta's message.

There are voices against it, there always will be, but all that is left is evidence of a lack of awareness of the issue, or what her actual message is.

This nonsense is closer to being more of your attempted humour than anything actually worth discussing on this thread.

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Well we live in a country whose answer to everything is tax tax tax.....but call it a 'levy'.

Whatever Greta and others are proposing it will cost money....where does it come from?

Once again, her message.

Tell me how wrote: »

But, once again, this is beside the point and is specifically something which Greta has pointed out. The appropriate solutions, technologies, economies are not there at the moment. They need to be created.
So, why not support someone who is saying that something which needs to be fixed should get attention in order to fix it?

What Greta is saying is that action is needed. She is not proposing anything other than listening to the scientists who have evidence that action is needed.

If someone said your roof was going to fall in but it would cost 20K to fix it, would you refuse to fix it as it was going to cost money?

Maybe if people offered some ideas instead of presuming that it is going to cost them money we would make much more progress.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

The 3 governments most relevant to Ireland for various reasons are generally our own, the US and the UK.

None of these have pushed carbon taxes, in fact, Irish government was lambasted for not bringing in carbon taxes in the 2018 budget.
The US government has a President trying to actively open coal mines.
Boris Johnson's government is expected to facilitate fracking in the UK.

So which government is pushing taxes or is it just something you heard which has made the hair stand up on the back of your head?

(For the record, I think, unfortunately, taxes will end up being necessary, either that or legislation as we have seen in the past that it takes either or both of these to change behaviour even on items which are pretty straightforward. Think plastic bag tax and smoking in the workplace ban as examples of this. Tax or no tax, the fact is action is needed, so how do we make it happen?)

My but you do seem to have a very short memory span no?

Do you remember trying to make that claim previously and getting informed otherwise ...

Carbon taxes here now for nearly a decade with the latest being

Budget 2020

The carbon tax on fuel will increase by €6 from €20 per tonne to €26 per tonne. The increase will apply to auto fuels from midnight on 8 October 2019 and to solid fuels from 1 May 2020.

And that is just the start of increases of carbon taxes in lots of new creative ways 

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/motor_carbon_other_taxes/carbon_tax.html

KyussB

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

You are dreaming. So are you forcing people to grow their own veg or are you seizing land and forcing people to work it by hand without machinery?

You obviously know nowt about farming or food production and have been listening to the wrong people.


Here is an example.......organic food is grown without pesticides etc but always costs more......why is that?

Also subsidies are other peoples hard earned tax money.........so were is it coming from?

The original set of comments wasn't aimed at you, so I'm not interested in debating a reinterpretation of what I wrote.

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

However, taxing 'bads' shouldn't be considered as a method for funding government policy - because naturally, 'bads' that are taxed, are discouraged and will collapse revenue over time - plus, if we tax present 'bads' like carbon too much, we will quite literally collapse our economy - so that's not a sustainable way to fund the necessary government policy.

I agree. But, all this talk of tax is making it easy for a prospective government to introduce it as the general public are walking around (it seems) just waiting for it to happen.

It would be much better to provide incentives to change behaviour (extend bike to work scheme to give a tax credit if your company is signed up and can prove people are using it or whatever).

If we had a society that wanted to see change, it would happen much much faster and less painfully, that is why I support Greta, she is trying to get people to realise that change is needed, and we can help direct that change.

But, people are making it easy for a government to eventually (because time is running out) turn around and say 'Well, people won't change their behaviour so we have to penalise them' and then it is said that the whole thing was to make money.

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

Once again, her message.



What Greta is saying is that action is needed. She is not proposing anything other than listening to the scientists who have evidence that action is needed.

If someone said your roof was going to fall in but it would cost 20K to fix it, would you refuse to fix it as it was going to cost money?

Maybe if people offered some ideas instead of presuming that it is going to cost them money we would make much more progress.

Well I am all for something that aint gonna cost me any money.

When you have done with that, I have a house that needs painting and a whole lot of other jobs as well. Of course you can listen too me and I will show you the evidence and point out the action that is needed.

When we are done.......you find the magic money tree to buy the paint and I will hold the ladder. The Mrs will provide you will lots of coffee.

Boredstiff666

KyussB wrote: »

The original set of comments wasn't aimed at you, so I'm not interested in debating a reinterpretation of what I wrote.

I wouldn't do that either..........because I know all about farming, organic food production and self sufficiency. I was involved with it for years and with some quite well known people on the subject.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Post by post, you are proving there is no argument against Greta's message. There are voices against it, there always will be, but all that is left is evidence of a lack of awareness of the issue, or what her actual message is. This nonsense is closer to being more of your attempted humour than anything actually worth discussing on this thread.

To paraphrase that completely irrelevant reply and considerable quantity of heated gas

Post by post, you are proving there is no argument for anything remotely which could be described as "Greta's message"

There are voices against that, there always will be, but all that is left is evidence of a lack of awareness of reality , or that some believe greta has any effective message whatsoever

This nonsense is closer to being more to an apparent lack of humour than anything actually worth discussing on this thread.

...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

My but you do seem to have a very short memory span no?

Do you remember trying to make that claim previously and getting informed otherwise ...

Carbon taxes here now for nearly a decade with the latest being



And that is just the start of increases of carbon taxes in lots of new creative ways 

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/motor_carbon_other_taxes/carbon_tax.html

Everything has to be spoon fed to you. My post said 2018 and after the budget was published, there was a lot of commentary about nothing to further help facilitate protecting the environment. If you recall, between that and the 2019 budget, there were European elections after which Leo said there was a Green Wave and they would pay attention to it, hence the rise in 2019 budget.

Point being, as I pointed out, they had not been falling over themselves trying to introduce such taxes.