Little Greta comes clean

[Leonhard]

I wasn't even paying attention to that line. Strange that you did while ignoring everything else in the photo.

Plastic waste in Scandinavia is not as bad as you'd think. Even in the US. Both places can do even better, but the vast majority come from new economies in Asia and India where they have rivers of plastic floating into the ocean. Those are the places that need to be focused on. Not whether you drink out of a paper straw.

We have gas fed incinerators in Denmark that burn that stuff clean.

[Leonhard]

Because it doesn't work politically. In the long run, folks don't want to give up their conveniences, and this includes those who screech about climate change the loudest. A perfect example of this is California, a liberal state, but because the liberals don't want to give up their SUVs, they need harsh government regulation to control emissions, and even this is failing. So if the most staunchest of climate change screeching liberals don't want to voluntarily be inconvenienced, then no one else does. They don't want to pay more taxes. They don't want to radically curb their diet. They don't want give up their cars. They don't want to pay higher fuel prices. And when government tightens the screws to reduce their quality of life in the name of fighting climate change, the populace reacts negatively -- a la France.

That's fair. People want to save the world, but they don't want to sacrifice anything to do it.

[seer]

That's fair. People want to save the world, but they don't want to sacrifice anything to do it.

Even those who fully buy into Climate change can't get it together!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ds-In-Disarray

[Sparko]

Plastic waste in Scandinavia is not as bad as you'd think. Even in the US. Both places can do even better, but the vast majority come from new economies in Asia and India where they have rivers of plastic floating into the ocean. Those are the places that need to be focused on. Not whether you drink out of a paper straw.

We have gas fed incinerators in Denmark that burn that stuff clean.

Then she shouldn't be complaining about it.

[Leonhard]

Then she shouldn't be complaining about it.

I agree. She shouldn't. Policies ought to be developed on the basis of sound science and facts, not emotionalism. Emotions are part of us sure. And it does have a place, but I thought Greta's first appearance was that place. A passionate speech, something for hte media to write about, and then back to more serious news. Yet we keep hearing about her.

[Teallaura]

In all fairness they did, and then the world did nothing for fifteen years. The proposals are honestly still fairly reasonable, with a total transition to renewables and nuclear power by 2050 in the US and Europe, and in 2100 in Africa, India and China.

Er, who are you talking to? The proposals run from carbon tax (punish the developed world!) to rebuild the entire US infrastructure (and that's the least insane part). Then the more destructive 'small steps' - one of which is what hurt Mossy - that artificially raise fuel prices and destroy jobs and even whole local economies.

The problem isn't that the world did nothing - it's that it's done plenty but very little of it fair or sane.

'Renewables' are bizarrely defined as solar and wind - neither of which can take the modern load and both are conservation nightmares. My favorite for raw stupidity is California's drive toward solar. They are literally on the ring of fire.

I have never told you, that you are stupid Teal. As for the idea about 'weighted data', I haven't been part of the discussions you've been in. I don't think you're stupid.

I know that - wasn't even sort of implying otherwise. Thanks.

I am sorry Teal, I'm also frustrated, because it seems this is a question that divides politically. I used to be more right wing than I am now, but the rights refusal to acknowledge, or even propose solutions to the problem has seriously disillusioned me on right wing politics as something that responsibly handle global problems.

Now where do we go from here? I try to challenge conservatives on this, what would they propose, but all I hear is that its a scam.

Leo, what are you proposing for dealing with sasquatch habituation? I'm gonna guess 'nothing' because a) you don't believe they exist and b) you've got no clue what I mean.

But you expect counter proposals to deal with a problem that the people you are challenging don't believe exists. That's a self-defeating strategy.

Try redirecting the conversation to conservation and long term energy solutions. Sparky and I have both expressed interest in thorium reactors, a lot of conservatives are far more open to existing nuclear tech than liberals are, I'm much more interested in desert reclamation and land revitalization, newer, less intrusive hydro tech, and many conservatives are good with updating infrastructure and adding new sources like geothermal and tidal in the process. Stop making carbon the focus and use conservation, land management, energy independence and infrastructure upgrades to get the political goodwill, economic benefits and ecological gains that will reduce carbon as a byproduct.

Honey is more attractive than vinegar - and conservatives are far more effective with ecological impact than environmentalists are.


I'd support a lot of policies that will get the reductions you want - but I'm not going to support the global whatis insanity. So if you believe in this thing, try redirecting to policies that are win-win.

[Teallaura]

Plastic waste in Scandinavia is not as bad as you'd think. Even in the US. Both places can do even better, but the vast majority come from new economies in Asia and India where they have rivers of plastic floating into the ocean. Those are the places that need to be focused on. Not whether you drink out of a paper straw.

We have gas fed incinerators in Denmark that burn that stuff clean.

Just incinerators? Not generators?

[mossrose]

Plastic waste in Scandinavia is not as bad as you'd think. Even in the US. Both places can do even better, but the vast majority come from new economies in Asia and India where they have rivers of plastic floating into the ocean. Those are the places that need to be focused on. Not whether you drink out of a paper straw.

We have gas fed incinerators in Denmark that burn that stuff clean.

Then Greta should go to India and China and tell them that they are ruining her childhood and how dare they.

And don't those incinerators put out some sort of emissions that are not good for the environment? Smoke, or whatever?

[Leonhard]

Er, who are you talking to?

You?

The proposals run from carbon tax (punish the developed world!) to rebuild the entire US infrastructure (and that's the least insane part). Then the more destructive 'small steps' - one of which is what hurt Mossy - that artificially raise fuel prices and destroy jobs and even whole local economies.

Those I see more as systemic problems in a world where jobs are highly mobile, but some communities have formed around on primary industry that then closes. There's a conflict here, and I believe those people should have been given transition options. I don't know how right-wingers would solve this. Coal mines would also have closed if the artificial subsidies that keep them afloat are removed. Ironically I've seen conservatives arguing coal should be more heavily subsidies in order to keep people in coal jobs. Yet if they were consistent with their own notions of less government intrution, those mines would have closed as well.

The problem isn't that the world did nothing - it's that it's done plenty but very little of it fair or sane.

I don't consider the closing of a coal mine as "insane". If it is insane. Should governments have helped out Detroits industries when they were closing down, because it would save jobs for people there?

'Renewables' are bizarrely defined as solar and wind - neither of which can take the modern load and both are conservation nightmares.

I disagree. Its possible, but it will be all in all more expensive than nuclear power. The US could be entirely powered by solar, and the footprint of the solar panels would be significantly than the coal sectors.

My favorite for raw stupidity is California's drive toward solar. They are literally on the ring of fire.

Ring of fire?

I know that - wasn't even sort of implying otherwise. Thanks.

You're a good person Teal, you, Sparko, SeanD and Cow Poke are among the conservatives who's opinions I'm interested in and that I respect.

I try to challenge conservatives on this, what would they propose, but all I hear is that its a scam.

Leo, what are you proposing for dealing with sasquatch habituation?

Exactly my point.

Try redirecting the conversation to conservation and long term energy solutions. Sparky and I have both expressed interest in thorium reactors, a lot of conservatives are far more open to existing nuclear tech than liberals are, I'm much more interested in desert reclamation and land revitalization, newer, less intrusive hydro tech,

I agree with that this approach might be better for dialogue.

and many conservatives are good with updating infrastructure

That is news to me, my impression was that the idea of a federal funding to investigate and rebuild the infrastructure was part of government overreach?

[Leonhard]

Just incinerators? Not generators?

Generators and hot water for the city too.

And a ski slope.

[Leonhard]

Then Greta should go to India and China and tell them that they are ruining her childhood and how dare they.

The media should stop making Greta into something she is not. A saint.

And don't those incinerators put out some sort of emissions that are not good for the environment? Smoke, or whatever?

Carbon dioxide, though natural gas produces less of it. And this is mainly built to burn waste at very high temperatures so it decomposes entirely into water and carbon dioxide. Its got good filtrations for removing almost all the noxious stuff.

After all you're meant to be ski down it.

[mossrose]

But! Carbon dioxide! Oh, noes!



Yes, Greta should be ignored. But, she isn't. She is the new love of the MSM and the political left, and as I said before, she is causing damage to the economy of many places and is also being hypocritical in her behaviour.

[Teallaura]

Those I see more as systemic problems in a world where jobs are highly mobile, but some communities have formed around on primary industry that then closes. There's a conflict here, and I believe those people should have been given transition options. I don't know how right-wingers would solve this. Coal mines would also have closed if the artificial subsidies that keep them afloat are removed. Ironically I've seen conservatives arguing coal should be more heavily subsidies in order to keep people in coal jobs. Yet if they were consistent with their own notions of less government intrution, those mines would have closed as well.

Not this one - I'm for weaning all of our industries off subsidies - giving them a fair shot to then sink or swim.

I don't consider the closing of a coal mine as "insane". If it is insane. Should governments have helped out Detroits industries when they were closing down, because it would save jobs for people there?

Closing viable mines, plants, et al just to meet political goals is insane. Some really are weeds - some are not - taking a brush cutter when you need a sickle is dumb.

I disagree. Its possible, but it will be all in all more expensive than nuclear power. The US could be entirely powered by solar, and the footprint of the solar panels would be significantly than the coal sectors.

Was more or less the missing word? Regardless, the problems with both are batteries, indiscriminate wildlife destruction and the land destruction.

Ring of fire?

Yes. Where geothermal works best.

Exactly my point.

Er, huh?

I agree with that this approach might be better for dialogue.

That is news to me, my impression was that the idea of a federal funding to investigate and rebuild the infrastructure was part of government overreach?

Nope - AOC's rebuild every building and all the infrastructure w/i ten - twenty years - that insanity conservatives oppose. But sensible, responsible things like rebuilding/upgrading aging infrastructure are policies most conservatives will support - as long as the crazy stuff isn't tied to it.

[Leonhard]

But! Carbon dioxide! Oh, noes!

See I'm all about focusing action on where it makes sense. You know what the single most environmentally friendly thing you can do as a private citizen?

Ensure that your tire pressure is correct.

I wish people would do that rather than focus on sending gifts made out of recycled products, or small gestures of that nature. If people, across the world, ensured that their tire pressures was correct that would have a measurably significant impact on the CO2 output. And it also makes the car drive longer on the same amount of gas so you save money, and its better for your tires.

Yes, Greta should be ignored.

But, she isn't.

[Teallaura]

Generators and hot water for the city too.

And a ski slope.

Coolness!

Well, water skiing is still better, but nobody's perfect...