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

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

Yea nice how simply saying "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck" is an argument all on its own, completely removing any need to actually argue and prove those comparisons yourself :rolleyes:

When you force the climate change debate to its core/crux issue - reforming macroeconomic practice, so that it becomes possible to mount a proper fight to climate change - it really brings out the bat****, rabid conspiracy theories regarding Communism.

That it brings out that much partisan indignant howling, to try and shut down debate - shows just how effective the macroeconomic arguments are on climate change.

What would the glorious workers for the revolution be doing? You haven't even attempted to expand on that. You just keep repeating the word 'macroeconomic' is it your word of the month or something? You can't expect people to debate with you about a vague half baked plan about "mobilised workers" when you yourself don't even know what they would be doing. "Mobilising workers" is a classic move that happened in every dysfunctional communist sh*thole that ever existed btw, so you shouldn't be too surprised by the comparison.

KyussB

Why would I discuss the details of work done, when you disagree with even the possibility of e.g. funding it at the right scale in the first place?

You can't have the discussion about work done, without solving the political/economic problems necessary for e.g. funding it in the first place - which is my focus...

When you place a limit on the work done, so that it is limited by the resources available and the workers abilities - economically, that is enough to remove it from discussion, to focus on the bigger political/economic issues - the latter being the core/crux of the entire climate change debate, far above the work needing to be done.

KyussB

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

"Mobilising workers" is a classic move that happened in every dysfunctional communist sh*thole that ever existed btw, so you shouldn't be too surprised by the comparison.

Is 'mobilizing workers' a Communist term, now? :rolleyes:

Man these conspiracy theorists regarding Communism really play some stupid/far-fetched word games...

There mere idea of government employment of workers is Communist it seems...

ForestFire

KyussB wrote: »

Why would I discuss the details of work done, when you disagree with even the possibility of e.g. funding it at the right scale in the first place?

You can't have the discussion about work done, without solving the political/economic problems necessary for e.g. funding it in the first place - which is my focus...

When you place a limit on the work done, so that it is limited by the resources available and the workers abilities - economically, that is enough to remove it from discussion, to focus on the bigger political/economic issues - the latter being the core/crux of the entire climate change debate, far above the work needing to be done.

Do you think this plan is possible?


Your the only one that knows an iota about it, so your they only one can answer that question. So let's have your answer to your own question then.

KyussB

ForestFire wrote: »

Do you think this plan is possible?


Your the only one that knows an iota about it, so your they only one can answer that question. So let's have your answer to your own question then.

Yes, of course. A government can mobilize workers at almost any scale (but only with the right political/economic changes, first, due to the problems with economic practice/politics, today), and put those people to work with available resources, within the workers available skillsets - generally speaking, this means that you can make the workers do anything you like (upskilling them as necessary), including mount a war-effort against climate change.

I'm not planning to discuss these in detail (so I'd prefer not to be quizzed on them), because I'm focusing on the political/economic problems blocking the above mobilization, but some things you can do:
- Manhatten Project style Research & Development for new technologies (renewables - particularly solar, to reduce reliance on rare earths and bring down price faster - nuclear, materials research for less-carbon-heavy building materials, for energy efficiency, for energy-storage/batteries, carbon sequestration - you name it, anything at all useful to research for fighting climate change and carbon emmissions, this doesn't scratch the surface)

- Retrofit all heated buildings to maximize energy efficiency

- Mass-manufacturing factories for renewable power (important to have R&D to reduce rare earth reqirements), particularly solar, as well as batteries - with all buildings/properties eventually having this installed (potentially every residential building, even in Ireland, can produce all of its own power needs this way - and can be earning back by selling excess to the grid for commercial use)

- Complete overhaul of power infrastructure to support the above, to create massive amounts of new energy storage capacity, to replace all fossil fuel based power production with renewables and/or (not a fan myself) potentially nuclear, coupled with R&D on new power technologies and all other forms of viable non-carbon-heavy poweer sources

- Massive expansion of public transport and related infrastructure everywhere, to greatly reduce reliance on cars (with a combined massive effort at building new residential alongside this, for Ireland, to eliminate the housing crisis - with an emphasis on non-carbon-heavy building materials), and expansion of all-electric infrastructure (e.g. railway electrification) - significant expansion of new metros, all-electric bus fleets, more frequent and higher capacity services (also with better policing)

- Further into the future, R&D on carbon sequestration and hastening its conversion into e.g. building materials, and massive expansion of e.g. forestry, and potentially even use of excess power capacity for removing carbon and other greenhouse gases directly from the air - to move towards carbon-negative economies

That scratches the surface, just - but much of the technology already exists, and what is missing can be quickly developed with enough manpower, worldwide - and it can eliminate the vast majority of carbon emissions, and start a move towards a carbon-negative economy.

There's more than enough work involved in all of this, to devote a gigantic mobilized workforce towards - with a fighting chance of eliminating carbon emmissions by 2030, if countries were serious about it.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The tasks are limited to the resources available, and the abilities of the workers - within those constraints, there is no need to discuss the work done first - leaving us free to discuss the possibility of even mobilizing workers like this in the first place.

Oh yes there is ...

"KyussB wrote:

...Do you see how it's impossible to debate the bigger political/macroeconomic issues, if I start discussing the thousands of different types of work that can be done?....

Nope not at all. That clearly doesn't follow.
Let's give it a spin a see how we get on ...

KyussB

You can abstract-away the entire discussion of work to be done, by saying the work will be limited to the resources available, and the workers abilities - that's pretty much a necessity for having the debate over the bigger political/economic issues.

In any case, I gave a big enough list to mobilize a fucking gigantic workforce - more than enough work to keep it going a decade, with a fighting chance at achieving the goal of eliminating nearly all emissions by 2030.

recedite

KyussB wrote: »

- Manhatten Project style Research & Development for new technologies (renewables - particularly solar, to reduce reliance on rare earths and bring down price faster - nuclear, materials research for less-carbon-heavy building materials, for energy efficiency, for energy-storage/batteries, carbon sequestration - you name it, anything at all useful to research for fighting climate change and carbon emmissions, this doesn't scratch the surface)

- Retrofit all heated buildings to maximize energy efficiency

- Mass-manufacturing factories for renewable power (important to have R&D to reduce rare earth reqirements), particularly solar, as well as batteries - with all buildings/properties eventually having this installed (potentially every residential building, even in Ireland, can produce all of its own power needs this way - and can be earning back by selling excess to the grid for commercial use)

- Complete overhaul of power infrastructure to support the above, to create massive amounts of new energy storage capacity, to replace all fossil fuel based power production with renewables and/or (not a fan myself) potentially nuclear, coupled with R&D on new power technologies and all other forms of viable non-carbon-heavy poweer sources

- Massive expansion of public transport and related infrastructure everywhere, to greatly reduce reliance on cars (with a combined massive effort at building new residential alongside this, for Ireland, to eliminate the housing crisis - with an emphasis on non-carbon-heavy building materials), and expansion of all-electric infrastructure (e.g. railway electrification) - significant expansion of new metros, all-electric bus fleets, more frequent and higher capacity services (also with better policing)

- Further into the future, R&D on carbon sequestration and hastening its conversion into e.g. building materials, and massive expansion of e.g. forestry, and potentially even use of excess power capacity for removing carbon and other greenhouse gases directly from the air - to move towards carbon-negative economies.

A lot there, but I highlighted a few that I think we could easily be getting on with.


Regarding the solar, there is still no feed-in tariff available here for most customers; if you were to install it on your roof and export green energy to the grid you would get paid exactly zero by your electricity company.


Regarding upgrades to buildings - check this out; credit unions cashing in on the govt. grants already available and charging an extortionate 7.2% interest on the loans. Offer ends today BTW but I'm sure another similar one will be along.
I think KyussB will agree with me that the state can, and should, create that credit (money) and lend it out at 0% interest to any interested parties.

Fr_Dougal

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Does she have 'a difference' as Joe Duffy would call it?

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1167122679989776384

Seriously out of her depth when she’s not reading from a script.

She looks terrified, parents should be ashamed of themselves.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You can abstract-away the entire discussion of work to be done, by saying the work will be limited to the resources available, and the workers abilities - that's pretty much a necessity for having the debate over the bigger political/economic issues.

In any case, I gave a big enough list to mobilize a fucking gigantic workforce - more than enough work to keep it going a decade, with a fighting chance at achieving the goal of eliminating nearly all emissions by 2030.

Nope. We will go straight for the specifics thanks. Then we can flesh the bones so to speak. Its bizarre but you really seem to like the word "fucking" - very very odd altogether tbh

I do have to ask - what's the beef with 2030? Are you listening to gretas doomsdays predictions by any chance?

greta wrote:

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report said.

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. We will go straight for the specifics thanks. Then we can flesh the bones so to speak. Its bizarre but you really seem to like the word "fucking" - very very odd altogether tbh

I do have to ask - what's the beef with 2030? Are you listening to gretas doomsdays predictions by any chance?



This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report said.

You don't give a shit about the work that would be done, as you're playing a stupid game of pretending you didn't notice it being posted - and are immediately trying to change the topic, away from what you yourself insisted on pushing discussion towards., now that you've got a fairly fucking substantial answer.

Just proves you're trying to spin bullshit.

Next thing you're probably going to do is start wailing about me not bothering with another stupid question, that diverts from what I'm actually trying to discuss.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You don't give a shit about the work that would be done, as you're playing a stupid game of pretending you didn't notice it being posted - and are immediately trying to change the topic, away from what you yourself insisted on pushing discussion towards., now that you've got a fairly fucking substantial answer.Just proves you're trying to spin bullshitNext thing you're probably going to do is start wailing about me not bothering with another stupid question, that diverts from what I'm actually trying to discuss.

'****' now instead of '****ing'? Nice!

Can you not engage in discussion without accusing all and sundry of everything imaginable? But yes looks like we may have cross posted. There is still no specifics on actual jobs however. But there you go.

Considering the vague details of your many previous comments from which other posters are still trying to determine exactly what you are on about when no one really knows what you are on about - how could others give a proverbial one way or the other -

And greta's 2030 supposed doomsday scenario is relevant as you keep on quoting it. As pointed out that's not what is being detailed by ths IPCC scientist quoted above.

Perhaps you now need to revise your paricular 10 year plan/ manifesto.

Though I think I smell a rat with the continuous pretence of outrage. It comes across as particularly ott tbh.

weldoninhio

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Seriously out of her depth when she’s not reading from a script.

She looks terrified, parents should be ashamed of themselves.

What’s the story with the gurning out of her when she is being clapped?? Looks like Zed from Police Academy.

hetuzozaho

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1167916177927991296?s=19

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1167916177927991296?s=19

You like the tweet so much you posted in three times hetuzozaho?

I believe it was gretas mother who first starting saying that the condition was a 'superpower" (and also incidentally that the child greta believed she could see carbon emissions). I reckon pushing the idea that a diagnosed condition someone makes anyone better by default than anyone else is neither beneficial nor a particularly balanced view tbh.

Leaving aside any comments on looks etc which are irrelevant tbh - It also suggests that there can be no criticism of those pushing / directing her or what she says no matter how factual that is or otherwise. It certainly does not indicate she is 'winning'. Hardly a healthy preparation for later adulthood tbh.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

You like the tweet so much you posted in three times hetuzozaho?

Haha yeah. And you hate it so much you had to post a load of nonsense

jackboy

hetuzozaho wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1167916177927991296?s=19

It’s appalling that some people are going after her looks. She clearly has good intentions.

However, there is something ‘off’ about this. I find it hard to believe that these are Greta’s words. It reads like pr speak written by an adult.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Haha yeah. And you hate it so much you had to post a load of nonsense

The truth hurts hetuzozaho? Btw pointing that out is not 'nonsense' no matter how much you may wish to flag it that way. But no matter ...

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

The truth hurts hetuzozaho? Btw pointing that out is not 'nonsense' no matter how much you may wish to flag it that way. But no matter ...

Yep no matter

hetuzozaho

What a great experience it must have been

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1167811022247342081

blinding

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Seriously out of her depth when she’s not reading from a script.

She looks terrified, parents should be ashamed of themselves.

Is the way they are using this vulnerable young girl child abuse ?

Thelonious Monk

People on this thread were going after her looks and anything else they could go after tbf

Thelonious Monk

weldoninhio wrote: »

What’s the story with the gurning out of her when she is being clapped?? Looks like Zed from Police Academy.

Exhibit A. Pathetic.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What a great experience it must have been

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1167811022247342081

Apart from the experience of sailing what real value lies in this trip?

Certainly the trip was not carbon neutral as was supposed to be the central idea - especially considering the fact the crew has to be flown to the US to sail the boat back etc.

I've sailed the Atlantic in stormy and rough weather conditions and it's not somewhere I would suggest is a good place for any teenager with aspergers for any extended period. And that's not being 'mean' that's an assessment of the environment in which the teenager was placed by adults who should know better tbh.

The slick promotional video you've linked perhaps best provides the real indications of what we are dealing with here tbh - it's a PR stunt and not a very good one at that tbh.

blinding

gozunda wrote: »

Apart from the experience of sailing across what real value lies in this trip?

Certainly the trip was not carbon neutral as was supposed to be the central idea - especially considering the fact the crew has to flown to the US to sail the boat back etc.

I've sailed the Atlantic in stormy and rough weather conditions and it's not somewhere I would suggest is a good place for any teenager with aspergers for any extended period. And that's not being 'mean' that's an assessment of the environment in which the teenager was placed by adults who should know better tbh.

The slick promotional video you've linked perhaps best provides the real indications of what we are dealing with here tbh - it's a PR stunt and not a very good one at that tbh.

Another shooting themselves in the foot from these head the balls . They are doing a great job of ridiculing themselves .

weldoninhio

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What a great experience it must have been

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1167811022247342081

Surely she’s getting the boat back, no??

weldoninhio

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Exhibit A. Pathetic.

Are facial tics associated with Aspergers?? I’ve never seen it before.

blinding

weldoninhio wrote: »

Surely she’s getting the boat back, no??

Probably 104 private jets with their hypocrites on route now:eek::eek:

batgoat

weldoninhio wrote: »

Are facial tics associated with Aspergers?? I’ve never seen it before.

Yes they are, ignorance means you can insult or insinuate as much you want?

Blueshoe

KyussB wrote: »

You can abstract-away the entire discussion of work to be done, by saying the work will be limited to the resources available, and the workers abilities - that's pretty much a necessity for having the debate over the bigger political/economic issues.

In any case, I gave a big enough list to mobilize a fucking gigantic workforce - more than enough work to keep it going a decade, with a fighting chance at achieving the goal of eliminating nearly all emissions by 2030.

No thanks. Sounds a bit like communism. The free market is better.

Here's a group of women on "birth strike" until the climate is fixed.

https://youtu.be/1OF30bkWY_k