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

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't think you understand how Greta has helped to drawn attention to the need for action in this space since she started. (Don't say we knew about it already, we did, but were giving in piecemeal attention as the situation escalated)

It's insulting to suggest she needs to wait until she's older when time is such a critical element.

I totally understand how Greta has drawn attention to the need for action in this space, and I didn’t say she needs to wait until she’s older. I said her interests would be best served by being encouraged to go back to school and focus on her studies, and then when she’s older, she can engage in all the activism she wants.

It’s insulting to my intelligence to suggest I should listen to a child telling me they’re not going back to school unless they see me giving a shìte about climate change. Since when do we permit children to dictate to adults how to run their lives? Greta’s parents might allow that for fear of alienating themselves from their daughter, and her supporters might permit her to tell everyone that she wants people to panic and be scared like she is, but I don’t see any reason why I should entertain a child’s insecurities? I don’t think it’s healthy for that child or for any child to instill that sort of fear in them.

Perhaps when Greta gains some knowledge of science herself or economics, that might allay her fears of impending doom and gloom from a child’s perspective. That’s what I mean by it serving her best interests to go back to school and focus on her studies, she might actually learn something herself and contribute to society in a meaningful way when she’s older and has gained some perspective.

It’s one thing to say we should listen to scientists, it’s quite something else to try and spread guilt and fear among people in order to try and coerce them into compliance with campaigners demands. That might work for Greta on her parents, and it suits other people’s purposes to pretend Greta has this almighty power to command people’s attention, but it doesn’t work outside of their own ecobubble - simply because they lack critical mass - there aren’t enough adults who buy into their nonsense, and the children who will follow anything will soon forget about the doom and gloom that Greta and her campaigners and supporters are perpetuating. Greta will be back at square one too with none of her school friends interested in having anything to do with her cause, they’ll have moved on to the next trending cause already.

recedite

Blueshoe wrote: »

Sooner the better. Although scientists told us that if we didn't change our ways we would all be underwater by the year 2000.

Il be dead by 2070 give or take unless I die early. But I'd like to see the planet go with me.

:pac:
May as well go out with a bang, eh?
You can't take the planet with you, after all.


I wouldn't worry though. We'll have fusion reactors for supplying all our power by then, and greenhouse gases will be an endangered species.
That's assuming we haven't all become Nigerian/Somalis and reverted back to third world technologies.

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

These are absolutely absurd examples and I'd suggest you read more about the potential instant effect of Brexit. If you're really comparing them you are not living in the real world at all. You do seem to be an all or nothing proponent. I saw three good ideas this week which have been implemented. That to me is a good thing and at the risk of repeating myself these things take time but they are happening all around us.

What ideas did you see this week? Please, enlighten us.
Are they reversing or halting damage or just better than what we have been doing?

If you think Brexit is a bigger long term problem than the climate issue, you don't understand the situation.

Brexit is much more immediate and rightly getting immediate attention but the climate issue is global, and harder to recover from.

Blueshoe

recedite wrote: »

:pac:
May as well go out with a bang, eh?
You can't take the planet with you, after all.


I wouldn't worry though. We'll have fusion reactors for supplying all our power by then, and greenhouse gases will be an endangered species.
That's assuming we haven't all become Nigerian/Somalis and reverted back to third world technologies.

One can only dream.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

What ideas did you see this week? Please, enlighten us.
Are they reversing or halting damage or just better than what we have been doing?

If you think Brexit is a bigger long term problem than the climate issue, you don't understand the situation.

Brexit is much more immediate and rightly getting immediate attention but the climate issue is global, and harder to recover from.

SF International airport have banned single use bottles, Molson are taking plastic out of the beer packs at a cost of €8m and Supervalue have introduced a reusable compostible bag! The Guardian, too, has a bag with its weekend supplement made out of potato starch.
Who said Brexit was a long term problem, although it could be medium term? It is however an immediate problem and has the potential to cost a lot of money, money then not available to go on other things. There's no silver bullet in this whole issue and it will come through lots and lots of small increments, like any project.

Blueshoe

is_that_so wrote: »

SF 49ers have banned single use bottles, Molson are taking plastic out of the beer packs at a cost of €8m and Supervalue have introduced a reusable compostible bag! The Guardian, too, has a bag with its weekend supplement made out of potato starch.
Who said Brexit was a long term problem, although it could be medium term? It is however an immediate problem and has the potential to cost a lot of money, money then not available to go on other things. There's no silver bullet in this whole issue and it will come through lots and lots of small increments, like any project.

Waste of time and effort. Akin to trying to stop the tide with a paper cup. (Recycled of course)

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

SF 49ers have banned single use bottles, Molson are taking plastic out of the beer packs at a cost of €8m and Supervalue have introduced a reusable compostible bag! The Guardian, too, has a bag with its weekend supplement made out of potato starch.

Wow. Panic averted. These really are revolutionary and will have a massive positive impact.

is_that_so

Blueshoe wrote: »

Waste of time and effort. Akin to trying to stop the tide with a paper cup. (Recycled of course)

Well, I can see there'd be problems with you on the project team!

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow. Panic averted. These really are revolutionary and will have a massive positive impact.

Every little helps! Actual things being done is good. Pie in the sky notions just stay there and proselytizing sends people into a stupor.

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

Every little helps! Actual things being done is good. Pie in the sky notions just stay there and proselytizing sends people into a stupor.

Do you see now the relevance of my analogy about fly tipping while picking up litter when walking the dog?

We need massive change, somehow. The above should be encouraged, but we need the majority of people to do it. Not just isolated cases which people use to absolve themselves from more serious action.

Blueshoe

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you see now the relevance of my analogy about fly tipping while picking up litter when walking the dog?

We need massive change, somehow.

Worldwide ban on having more than 2 children per couple is step 1

is_that_so

Blueshoe wrote: »

Worldwide ban on having more than 2 children per couple is step 1

Not a non-natalist! Who's going to pay for the pensions or do the work?

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you see now the relevance of my analogy about fly tipping while picking up litter when walking the dog?

We need massive change, somehow. The above should be encouraged, but we need the majority of people to do it. Not just isolated cases which people use to absolve themselves from more serious action.

It's not much use as an analogy absurdly marrying as it does too utterly unrelated activities. Nudging rather than barracking is the way forward.

biko

Blueshoe wrote: »

Worldwide ban on having more than 2 children per couple is step 1

How about you just come out and say it - MENA
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
Most Western countries already have fertility rates below 2, it's time for the developing nations to step up and shoulder their responsibility.

CinemaGuy45

biko wrote: »

How about you just come out and say it - MENA
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
Most Western countries already have fertility rates below 2

Jesus thoughtcrime there lucky for us all you spotted it.:rolleyes:

Do you think people who can not afford to feed or look after children should be having more than two?

Tell me how

This is why it's such a big problem.

Our capatilist society is not conducive to sustainability.

I'm no socialist/communist but we need to find a way where prioritising the environment is way higher in the order of priorities than it currently is. (Not suggesting socialist/communist societies would inherently be better for the environment either.)

is_that_so

biko wrote: »

How about you just come out and say it - Africa
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
Most Western countries already have fertility rates below 2

Africa too will eventually get there too. The average rates have been dropping since the 1960s. Addressing levels of poverty will reduce it more quickly.

Blueshoe

is_that_so wrote: »

Africa too will eventually get there too. The average rates have been dropping since the 1960s. Addressing levels of poverty will reduce it more quickly.

What!! That is totally untrue and the opposite of reality.

https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.ft.com/content/868e20d0-90ec-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F868e20d0-90ec-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not much use as an analogy absurdly marrying as it does too utterly unrelated activities. Nudging rather than barracking is the way forward.

We don't have the time.

CinemaGuy45

Blueshoe wrote: »

What!! That is totally untrue and the opposite of reality.

https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.ft.com/content/868e20d0-90ec-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F868e20d0-90ec-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2

Look true or untrue does not come into it.
There is correct and incorrect and that poster was correct.

Sorry I forget to insert politically before the word correct.:D

Just because you facts are factual does not mean you are correct especially these days.;)

Blueshoe

Using up a years worth of resources sooner and sooner. Too many folks on the planet.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

This is why it's such a big problem.

Our capatilist society is not conducive to sustainability.

I'm no socialist/communist but we need to find a way where prioritising the environment is way higher in the order of priorities than it currently is. (Not suggesting socialist/communist societies would inherently be better for the environment either.)

Grandiose gestures aren’t a very good indicator of someone thinking about sustainability though, are they? We all know of the marathon runner who peaked too early, or the sprinter who can only make short energetic bursts and can’t maintain that speed. That’s what you’re advocating with the scaremongering about time being critical and all the rest of it.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Grandiose gestures aren’t a very good indicator of someone thinking about sustainability though, are they? We all know of the marathon runner who peaked too early, or the sprinter who can only make short energetic bursts and can’t maintain that speed. That’s what you’re advocating with the scaremongering about time being critical and all the rest of it.

Do you not think time is critical?

Do you think the scientists who say it is are lying?

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you not think time is critical?

Do you think the scientists who say it is are lying?

What scientists? Saying what? Are you talking about the 12 year thing?

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you not think time is critical?

Do you think the scientists who say it is are lying?

it’s not that I think time isn’t critical or that I think scientists are lying. It’s that I think creating something sustainable means creating something long-term, not expending all our energy on short-term grandiose gestures that like fireworks make a lot of noise but only last a few minutes.

Children already learn in school about environmental sustainability, it’s not even a question of listening to scientists, it’s a question of helping people to understand how they can play their part in creating a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy. Without understanding the basics, telling people just to listen to the scientists is just pointless posturing to be honest.

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

What scientists? Saying what? Are you talking about the 12 year thing?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/03/climate-crisis-is-about-to-put-humanity-at-risk-un-scientists-warn

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49149761

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

If you are trying to discount Greta's position purely on the basis of whether the cliff edge is 2030 or not, you're deliberately being pedantic in order to ignore the reality.

bfa1509

jackboy wrote: »

What scientists? Saying what? Are you talking about the 12 year thing?

People are always saying "Scientists say this Scientists say that" But they never say who the hell the scientists are! Surely if there is damning research to say x, y and z then the "scientist" who came up with it would want to be referenced appropriately to get the credit they deserve?

Someone posted this very interesting article a while back from an actual scientist. It could be a godsend for all those who fear the end is nigh!

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it’s not that I think time isn’t critical or that I think scientists are lying. It’s that I think creating something sustainable means creating something long-term, not expending all our energy on short-term grandiose gestures that like fireworks make a lot of noise but only last a few minutes.

Children already learn in school about environmental sustainability, it’s not even a question of listening to scientists, it’s a question of helping people to understand how they can play their part in creating a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy. Without understanding the basics, telling people just to listen to the scientists is just pointless posturing to be honest.

Greta is advancing the awareness and therefore the broader discussion in a way which is new.

If it lasts 6, 12, 18 or 24 months, it is better than the tokenism which had gone before.

The biggest impact she is likely to have had is to create awareness amongst her peers so that as they move towards college, work, adulthood they'll demand action from governmental organisations more than previous generations did.

Tell me how

bfa1509 wrote: »

People are always saying "Scientists say this Scientists say that" But they never say who the hell the scientists are! Surely if there is damning research to say x, y and z then the "scientist" who came up with it would want to be referenced appropriately to get the credit they deserve?

Someone posted this very interesting article a while back from an actual scientist. It could be a godsend for all those who fear the end is nigh!

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

12,000 scientists signed statement supporting children striking for action on climate.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00861-z

Also, the post previous to yours contained links to 4 articles reporting scientific positions.

Maybe you'd know who they were if you were willing to look.

MarquisDeSad

bfa1509 wrote: »

People are always saying "Scientists say this Scientists say that" But they never say who the hell the scientists are! Surely if there is damning research to say x, y and z then the "scientist" who came up with it would want to be referenced appropriately to get the credit they deserve?

Someone posted this very interesting article a while back from an actual scientist. It could be a godsend for all those who fear the end is nigh!

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

The author is a website designer and not climate expert. Hilarious.