Carbon Climate - activist

slowbike

john80 wrote:

I am slightly intrigued as when she gets to the USA as a 16 year old is she attending the summit alone and then returning by boat or is she getting some family to fly out to meet her.

Her Dad is sailing with her - there's 5 onboard the boat - 2 sailors, her, her Dad and a journalist/documentary maker ...

john80 wrote:

The point is valid but in reality to tackle climate change the only real method to do this is population control first and then deal with the decline in capitalism as there is less people to fuel the endless growth people want that currently pays for our life model. Whether you fly economy once or twice a year is really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. As turkeys don't tend to vote for christmas and humans are in the main selfish then it seems unlikely that climate change can actually be challenged.

Indeed, we are mostly selfish - except perhaps, when it comes to our own family and friends.

I don't disagree - population reduction would be beneficial - unfortunately governments don't seem to see it like that - as there's no "growth" in a declining and aging population, although why Growth is always better needs to be considered ..

Perhaps we should legalise euthanasia - done in such a way that we can decide when we've had enough and cease to be a burden for our family & country - could go a long way to relieving pressure on health care and on the young to provide enough income to support it.

Easier to resolve is the static power requirement - if it's hooked up then we can simply provide power from clean sources as they become available (and the government can accelerate this with funding research or installation assistance)

Harder to resolve is the mobile power requirement - batteries, although better than they were, still won't cut it for the most power hungry - which of course, affects travel ... and that's what a lot of people won't/can't give up...

One problem is - small increments in fuel prices do little to discourage driving - I can fill up my (small) car with 40L which at 50mpg gets me ~440 miles. £1.20/L = 11pence per mile, £1.30/L = 11.8ppm, £1.50/L = 13.6ppm. £2/L starts hitting at 18ppm - but even so, I only fill up every 2-3 weeks, so it's not going to dissuade me that much - and of course, putting up the fuel price is going to hit the poorer people first - it's not as though it's cheap enough to switch to electric vehicles - cheaper to run just looking at the fuel price - but the price of the battery is enough to put many off ...
What it comes down to really, is that we've become too reliant on the motor vehicle and we should walk/run/ride more - but then I'm on a cycling forum, so we already know that

haydenm

I don't disagree with most of your comments there Coopster but I don't really feel like she is being exploited, she has quite a simple message really. I think a lot of the protesting isn't just extremists who want us to live in caves, it's quite mainstream these days.

Realistically, the sooner governments act the fewer poorer people will die as a result. At some point it will be bad for business and technological solutions will be found (or it might be too late). The long term future of businesses relies on the Earth being inhabitable so I'm sure the cost analysis will tip in favour of saving the planet at some point. Hey ho

slowbike

Coopster the 1st wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

My view has changed on her and I now agree with the view that she is a child who is being exploited by extremists.

Seems to be a lot of trying to scare the public by extremists in recent years...

Extremists because they believe in climate change and think we need to do something urgently about it? Not a dig, just interested to see why you would call them extremists.

Extremists as in detached from reality and their hypocrisy. Don't you think it is strange that they don't organise protests in as an example, China or Ethiopia? Why is that?

Too many people are saying something should be done without making any effort themselves as they expect everyone else to make the sacrifices

What's driving the Chinese pollution? Isn't it mostly the West's demand for cheap products?
yes - they should target those countries building more and more polluting power stations - at least the UN is holding conferences on it too ...

TheBigBean

A lot of this has already been thought through and published by the Committee on Climate Change in report.

keef66

laurentian wrote:

...

This was achieved by one nation - OK, a very big nation, but one nation nonetheless....
If just one modern Kennedy stood up and said it would be so.

Unfortunately that one very big nation doesn't currently have a Kennedy. It has a tangerine buffoon who'll be denying climate change till his golf course is underwater.

coopster_the_1st

HaydenM wrote:

I don't disagree with most of your comments there Coopster but I don't really feel like she is being exploited, she has quite a simple message really. I think a lot of the protesting isn't just extremists who want us to live in caves, it's quite mainstream these days.

If it was mainsteam we would see the changes? I'm sure you can report the same as below.

I still see schools gridlocked twice a day. I still see and pass the same traffic queues cycling to and from work. I still hear there is never enough office parking. Not one person, in over 100 people where I work(outside of London) has changed their mode of transport in 3 years, even when the weather is dry and sunny.

That is not mainstream!

coopster_the_1st

Slowbike wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

My view has changed on her and I now agree with the view that she is a child who is being exploited by extremists.

Seems to be a lot of trying to scare the public by extremists in recent years...

Extremists because they believe in climate change and think we need to do something urgently about it? Not a dig, just interested to see why you would call them extremists.

Extremists as in detached from reality and their hypocrisy. Don't you think it is strange that they don't organise protests in as an example, China or Ethiopia? Why is that?

Too many people are saying something should be done without making any effort themselves as they expect everyone else to make the sacrifices

What's driving the Chinese pollution? Isn't it mostly the West's demand for cheap products?
yes - they should target those countries building more and more polluting power stations - at least the UN is holding conferences on it too ...

1bn+ people improving their living standards is going to add quite a lot of pollution.

haydenm

Coopster the 1st wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I don't disagree with most of your comments there Coopster but I don't really feel like she is being exploited, she has quite a simple message really. I think a lot of the protesting isn't just extremists who want us to live in caves, it's quite mainstream these days.

If it was mainsteam we would see the changes? I'm sure you can report the same as below.

I still see schools gridlocked twice a day. I still see and pass the same traffic queues cycling to and from work. I still hear there is never enough office parking. Not one person, in over 100 people where I work(outside of London) has changed their mode of transport in 3 years, even when the weather is dry and sunny.

That is not mainstream!

I think it's quite common among those bloody millennial snowflakes to go vegetarian or reduced meat, reducing plastic waste and lots of other things which would have been considered extreme and 'hippy' a few years ago. I know people who don't want kids for environmental reasons, only have one car and try not to use it, don't fly and a whole host of other things are quite extreme when compared to baby boomers at the same stage of life. I think there are a surprising number of people who really do make actual changes, and if we don't then it's hypocritical to complain that Chinese people want all the same things as us.

*I am a millennial, the milennial/babyboomer thing is tongue in cheek

Stevo_666

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

haydenm

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

*Fewer.

I sequester more carbon than any of you old b*stards so I can have thousands of kids. Just don't tell the OH or it might happen...

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think she's trolling them mate, not the other way around.

you recon?

Look at how hard the prominent climate change deniers have bitten.

Clearly I don't think in that way - eitherway, she seems to be doing well at it - I just hope she's not taking the personal comments personally ...

TBH if Banks is really hating on you, you know you're probably onto a winner.

Coopster too, if only she knew.

david7m

https://interestingengineering.com/eart ... till-to-go

Interesting!

Stevo_666

HaydenM wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

*Fewer.

I sequester more carbon than any of you old b*stards so I can have thousands of kids. Just don't tell the OH or it might happen...

My statement applies particularly to millennial nit-pickers

Pross

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

There'll be no-one paying into our Ponzi style pension scheme then though or funding our healthcare (or doing all the jobs we'll need done.

Stevo_666

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

There'll be no-one paying into our Ponzi style pension scheme then though or funding our healthcare (or doing all the jobs we'll need done.

Surely a spot of self sufficiency is what they want?

john80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

There'll be no-one paying into our Ponzi style pension scheme then though or funding our healthcare (or doing all the jobs we'll need done.

Surely a spot of self sufficiency is what they want?

Given most countries capitalist and governance models requires growth and increased consumption to continue to function I would say that achieving measurable CO2 reductions are essentially impossible as population or migration reduction will be essentially impossible. Humans are suitably self interested and short term focused the only conclusion to be change when change is required and not when it is advisable.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

There'll be no-one paying into our Ponzi style pension scheme then though or funding our healthcare (or doing all the jobs we'll need done.

Surely a spot of self sufficiency is what they want?

Given most countries capitalist and governance models requires growth and increased consumption to continue to function I would say that achieving measurable CO2 reductions are essentially impossible as population or migration reduction will be essentially impossible. Humans are suitably self interested and short term focused the only conclusion to be change when change is required and not when it is advisable.

Isn't it not the wonder of capitalism that we are all, in theory at least, incentivsed to create a solution whereby growth can continue but CO2 and pollution doesn't necessarily have to? I mean, look at the newest itteration of one of the most expensive handbags you can buy - so exclusive they often won't sell it to you.



I mean, child labour was banned in the 19th Century and the economy still managed to thrive. Since then there have been many other regulations that are in society's interest but not necessarily the capitalist's. I'm sure the constraints of environmentalism are not necessarily prohibitive.

Check out the graph here: CO2 emissions per $of DGP.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD

As long as the issue is actually recognised, a solution might be found. Greta et al all help with that, so it's all fine by me.

Surely the challenge is to get the public behind the idea that it's important something is done so that governments can help create the framework in which it can be?

Whether that's subsidies or something more sophisticated.

I'm all for creating a new regulatory framework which makes polluting, whether that's Co2 or dodgy emissions or whatever economically less viable. As long as it's considered and all the consequences are well thought out.

TheBigBean

john80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

There'll be no-one paying into our Ponzi style pension scheme then though or funding our healthcare (or doing all the jobs we'll need done.

Surely a spot of self sufficiency is what they want?

Given most countries capitalist and governance models requires growth and increased consumption to continue to function I would say that achieving measurable CO2 reductions are essentially impossible as population or migration reduction will be essentially impossible. Humans are suitably self interested and short term focused the only conclusion to be change when change is required and not when it is advisable.

The UK has reduced its net carbon output and plans to reduce this to zero by 2050. That doesn't mean that other countries will, but it does mean that it is possible.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

john80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

There'll be no-one paying into our Ponzi style pension scheme then though or funding our healthcare (or doing all the jobs we'll need done.

Surely a spot of self sufficiency is what they want?

Given most countries capitalist and governance models requires growth and increased consumption to continue to function I would say that achieving measurable CO2 reductions are essentially impossible as population or migration reduction will be essentially impossible. Humans are suitably self interested and short term focused the only conclusion to be change when change is required and not when it is advisable.

The UK has reduced its net carbon output and plans to reduce this to zero by 2050. That doesn't mean that other countries will, but it does mean that it is possible.

some would argue that we have outsourced some of our carbon production.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

john80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I read somewhere that the biggest impact you can have if you are trying to slow global warming is to have less kids.

I only have one and am too old to be having any more, which more than offsets any car or holiday related activities and the odd lump of steak. However some of you millennials should seriously consider having 'the snip' if you haven't yet procreated - it's for the good of the planet and a very likely benefit to many of the rest of us as well

There'll be no-one paying into our Ponzi style pension scheme then though or funding our healthcare (or doing all the jobs we'll need done.

Surely a spot of self sufficiency is what they want?

Given most countries capitalist and governance models requires growth and increased consumption to continue to function I would say that achieving measurable CO2 reductions are essentially impossible as population or migration reduction will be essentially impossible. Humans are suitably self interested and short term focused the only conclusion to be change when change is required and not when it is advisable.

The UK has reduced its net carbon output and plans to reduce this to zero by 2050. That doesn't mean that other countries will, but it does mean that it is possible.

some would argue that we have outsourced some of our carbon production.

Then campaign for a carbon border tax.

This is one of those debates where I have little sympathy for either side. Carbon output can be reduced, it can't be net zero by tomorrow though.

slowbike

TheBigBean wrote:

This is one of those debates where I have little sympathy for either side. Carbon output can be reduced, it can't be net zero by tomorrow though.

Well - it could, but we wouldn't like it ... and it'd get a bit chilly shortly ... plus we might be hungry for a bit ...

TheBigBean

Slowbike wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

This is one of those debates where I have little sympathy for either side. Carbon output can be reduced, it can't be net zero by tomorrow though.

Well - it could, but we wouldn't like it ... and it'd get a bit chilly shortly ... plus we might be hungry for a bit ...

I think the absence of any food might lead to more than hunger.

slowbike

TheBigBean wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

This is one of those debates where I have little sympathy for either side. Carbon output can be reduced, it can't be net zero by tomorrow though.

Well - it could, but we wouldn't like it ... and it'd get a bit chilly shortly ... plus we might be hungry for a bit ...

I think the absence of any food might lead to more than hunger.

rather depends what you consider food ...

blueturtle

Greta Thunberg making a statement with regards to climate change by sailing to New York by yacht . No mention of 5 crew members flying home from New York to be replaced by a new crew who will also be flying out to New York to bring the yacht back home . Strange that we do not hear this from the mainstream media. Probably does not fit the agenda!!

orraloon

blueturtle wrote:

Greta Thunberg making a statement with regards to climate change by sailing to New York by yacht . No mention of 5 crew members flying home from New York to be replaced by a new crew who will also be flying out to New York to bring the yacht back home . Strange that we do not hear this from the mainstream media. Probably does not fit the agenda!!

You are Aaron Banks and ICMFP.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

blueturtle wrote:

Greta Thunberg making a statement with regards to climate change by sailing to New York by yacht . No mention of 5 crew members flying home from New York to be replaced by a new crew who will also be flying out to New York to bring the yacht back home . Strange that we do not hear this from the mainstream media. Probably does not fit the agenda!!

You are Aaron Banks and ICMFP.

Blueturtle's post definitely does not fit the liberal left agenda.

shirley_basso

blueturtle wrote:

Greta Thunberg making a statement with regards to climate change by sailing to New York by yacht . No mention of 5 crew members flying home from New York to be replaced by a new crew who will also be flying out to New York to bring the yacht back home . Strange that we do not hear this from the mainstream media. Probably does not fit the agenda!!

Where does one begin to dissect the stupidity and wilful ignorance of this post?

She has joined a boat which is making the journey anyway. And, those foiling IMOCA 60's are pretty damn fast so it's not a massive waste of time.

Pro sailing is under no illusions of being good for the environment, in much the same way pro cycling is no good with the caravan which follows.

But for the one individual who has to make the trip anyway, on a boat which is going there anyway, then it does make sense and is fantastic publicity for the cause and the boat. It's also a very carbon neutral trip, save for a bit of motoring on and off moorings, unless you're the type of moron who would also cause heavy breathing as increased co2.

Stevo_666

Surely if it was that urgent to make the Yanks change their ways, she would have chosen a faster way of getting there? After all, one person on a flight to change the ways of a nation of over 300m people that much sooner has to be beneficial to slowing global warming? Sometimes you just have to ignore the nasty comments on Twitter for the good of the planet.

shirley_basso

Because in taking the boat she has generated a lot of conversation (good and bad) prior to her arrival.

If she got there in a jet, rather than boat it would have dampened (pun intended) the message somewhat.

See the press's thoughts on '2 kids only' Harry and Meghan so they can go by PJ everywhere.

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

Because in taking the boat she has generated a lot of conversation (good and bad) prior to her arrival.

If she got there in a jet, rather than boat it would have dampened (pun intended) the message somewhat.

See the press's thoughts on '2 kids only' Harry and Meghan so they can go by PJ everywhere.

Like I said, sometimes you have to ignore the stuff in the media..if she thinks it will really change the ways of ways of (I believe) the largest greenhouse gas emitting nation on the planet.