Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Little Greta comes clean

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    What "lies" are these exactly?
    That anybody anywhere can be totally emission free anytime ever.



    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
      This thread isn't about Trump, Tassy. Even though it's gone way off topic, it's about Greta, and her real motives, and even her hypocrisy.
      I have considered that as young as she is that she may just be a pawn of her parents.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sherman View Post
        I have considered that as young as she is that she may just be a pawn of her parents.
        That is indeed a distinct possibility.


        Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

        Comment


        • Obvious pawn like Hogg, maybe the only difference she can make is to emit enough hot air to power the world.
          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
            That anybody anywhere can be totally emission free anytime ever.

            In Canada the liberals are proposing net zero emissions, not absolutely zero emissions. Net zero means that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions absorbed by forests etc in the country is equal to the amount of emissions being created by industry etc.

            Greta's essentially critiquing their policy, arguing for going further than net zero, and arguing that net zero can be achieved with dodgy math without much actually changing.
            Last edited by Starlight; 01-25-2020, 05:58 PM.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Yes. Her motives were stated surely. She demands that we disable every bit of emissions. Complete and utter ZERO admissions. So, basically the end of civilization as it exists.

              Source: Moronic 17 year old


              We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching “net zero emissions” or “carbon neutrality” by cheating and fiddling around with numbers. We are not telling you to “offset your emissions” by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate.

              Planting trees is good, of course, but it’s nowhere near enough of what is needed and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature.
              Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And, until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.

              © Copyright Original Source

              I agree that taken literally that is not a sensible statement.

              However there's quite a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration in her rhetoric here (e.g. "infinitely higher rate" isn't literal). I think underneath it all she has a valid point: Namely that so far there's been quite a bit of cheating with numbers to pretend emissions offsets where none were happening, and that the situation calls for some actual emissions reductions. e.g. carbon capture and storage, a move to renewables etc.

              Your own rhetoric is over the top too. Moving to fully electric vehicles and fully renewable energy sources wouldn't 'end' civilization.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                I have no clue what he expects. Maybe he could be the first one to stop breathing and that would help a great number of things!
                It would certainly be a significant reduction in the release of hot air.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                  Her motives are as stated in the op.
                  The OP suggested she wants "leftist wealth redistribution and social justice pipe dream".

                  Is the idea supposed to be that Greta doesn't care about the environment at all, and her campaigning for it is some sort of ploy to further her Real political goals?

                  How would campaigning against global warming further any causes like wealth redistribution or social justice? I'm confused as to how the logic of that idea works.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                    That anybody anywhere can be totally emission free anytime ever.
                    That's not exactly what she was saying. But I thought you were referring to the incontrovertible fact of climate change as a lie. But hopefully that's not what you were referring to.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      I agree that taken literally that is not a sensible statement.

                      However there's quite a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration in her rhetoric here (e.g. "infinitely higher rate" isn't literal). I think underneath it all she has a valid point: Namely that so far there's been quite a bit of cheating with numbers to pretend emissions offsets where none were happening, and that the situation calls for some actual emissions reductions. e.g. carbon capture and storage, a move to renewables etc.

                      Your own rhetoric is over the top too. Moving to fully electric vehicles and fully renewable energy sources wouldn't 'end' civilization.
                      I think you're hung up on semantics. The alarmist claim is that we only have a short open window (presumably a decade) until we make radical changes in global industrial infrastructure to offset the least amount of cost and damage as a future consequence. It may not be reducing emissions to zero, but that's a moot point. It still requires a radical reduction that would cause serious global disruptions. After that, they argue, the cost and damage of climate change from not taking these radical steps will inflate exponentially. This is Greta's message and this the mainstream message.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        I think you're hung up on semantics.
                        The difference between zero and net zero isn't semantics. They're completely different things.

                        The alarmist claim is that we only have a short open window (presumably a decade) until we make radical changes in global industrial infrastructure to offset the least amount of cost and damage as a future consequence.
                        Depending on who you're referring to, the claim is a lot more nuanced from that. The report that the oft repeated '12 year' number comes from, actually focused on 2050, but suggested it was sensible to begin emissions reductions well before then, in the next-decade kind of range. It's also debatable whether any 'radical changes in global industrial infrastructure' would be required. I've certainly not seen any evidence that it would be necessary for anyone to sacrifice their business or quality of life in order to achieve such emissions reductions. Building some renewable power sources, and subsidizing electric cars would likely go a long way toward emissions reductions. That might require governments to spend a few $$$, but they spend $$$ anyway on lots of things.

                        I'm aware that some people think more radical change is probably necessary to achieve substantial emissions reduction, and that there does need to be some level of sacrifice to some people's quality of life or businesses... e.g. maybe 20% less air travel and 10% less industrial emissions or somesuch. I wouldn't be surprised if Greta is one of those people... I've never heard her speak so I don't know, and I don't particularly care what she has to say. I personally, as someone who listens daily to progressives shows haven't seen anyone make a serious case that anything really radical is needed to reduce emissions. Progressives in general are simply keen to see the government build renewable power generation capacity, support a move to electric vehicles and plant some trees. It's portrayed almost always entirely as "let's do an innovative, fun, and interesting new spend-some-dollars government program" almost never ever as any kind of "we all need to make great sacrifices and not have fun things in life to save the planet".

                        It is certainly not any kind of standard scientific or liberal or progressive position to claim we need to return to a pre-technological era or need civilization to sacrifice all its industry to circumvent climate change. I find people in this thread who have invented that idea to be pretty hilarious.

                        It may not be reducing emissions to zero, but that's a moot point. It still requires a radical reduction that would cause serious global disruptions.
                        Citation needed on your part. As I said, I've seen zero evidence to suggest anyone need be inconvenienced by emissions reductions measures. Changing how power plants work and how cars work and planting some trees doesn't necessitate global disruptions of any kind.

                        After that, they argue, the cost and damage of climate change from not taking these radical steps will inflate exponentially.
                        Indeed, it appears the financial cost of not acting to prevent climate change will be a lot higher than the cost of acting.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Starlight still pretending he never bought into alarmism and never melted down when Trump exited the Paris Accord.

                          Namely that so far there's been quite a bit of cheating with numbers to pretend emissions offsets where none were happening
                          I am shocked, shocked, to find cheating going on.

                          Also, get your head out of the sand, emissions won't reduce any time soon as the rest of the world industrialises. You're just deceiving yourself.

                          What is all this deception for? Feeling good about yourself, because you believe the intellekshual position, self-delusion that emissions can be reduced? With people like you it's all ego-stroking and virtue signalling.
                          Last edited by demi-conservative; 01-26-2020, 01:34 AM.
                          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            The difference between zero and net zero isn't semantics. They're completely different things.

                            Depending on who you're referring to, the claim is a lot more nuanced from that. The report that the oft repeated '12 year' number comes from, actually focused on 2050, but suggested it was sensible to begin emissions reductions well before then, in the next-decade kind of range. It's also debatable whether any 'radical changes in global industrial infrastructure' would be required. I've certainly not seen any evidence that it would be necessary for anyone to sacrifice their business or quality of life in order to achieve such emissions reductions. Building some renewable power sources, and subsidizing electric cars would likely go a long way toward emissions reductions. That might require governments to spend a few $$$, but they spend $$$ anyway on lots of things.

                            I'm aware that some people think more radical change is probably necessary to achieve substantial emissions reduction, and that there does need to be some level of sacrifice to some people's quality of life or businesses... e.g. maybe 20% less air travel and 10% less industrial emissions or somesuch. I wouldn't be surprised if Greta is one of those people... I've never heard her speak so I don't know, and I don't particularly care what she has to say. I personally, as someone who listens daily to progressives shows haven't seen anyone make a serious case that anything really radical is needed to reduce emissions. Progressives in general are simply keen to see the government build renewable power generation capacity, support a move to electric vehicles and plant some trees. It's portrayed almost always entirely as "let's do an innovative, fun, and interesting new spend-some-dollars government program" almost never ever as any kind of "we all need to make great sacrifices and not have fun things in life to save the planet".

                            It is certainly not any kind of standard scientific or liberal or progressive position to claim we need to return to a pre-technological era or need civilization to sacrifice all its industry to circumvent climate change. I find people in this thread who have invented that idea to be pretty hilarious.

                            Citation needed on your part. As I said, I've seen zero evidence to suggest anyone need be inconvenienced by emissions reductions measures. Changing how power plants work and how cars work and planting some trees doesn't necessitate global disruptions of any kind.

                            Indeed, it appears the financial cost of not acting to prevent climate change will be a lot higher than the cost of acting.
                            I said THEIR argument is that after a decade, the cost of mitigation will only go higher exponentially. That's their argument not mine. Claiming that the cost of mitigating the effects of climate change will be higher or greater than the societal costs of reducing emissions is a matter of opinion. We know what some of those latter costs are and how it could disrupt society because we saw what happened in France as a result of trying to meet fanciful reduction requirements in the Paris accord. Folks got ticked off with just a carbon tax.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              We know what some of those latter costs are and how it could disrupt society because we saw what happened in France as a result of trying to meet fanciful reduction requirements in the Paris accord. Folks got ticked off with just a carbon tax.
                              That's a very creative interpretation of the French policies and protests. Haven't heard that one before
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                That's a very creative interpretation of the French policies and protests. Haven't heard that one before
                                Then you must be ignorant about it.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X