Greta Thunberg - Honorary PhD

[rogue06]

It's not really about "experience," more than it's about just knowing facts, of which you're poorly devoid of. I can post numerous quotes from the most prominent and outspoken climate change pushers in the media and academia peddling both climate change and overpopulation as the cause.

Your incoherent spiel about libertarian goes right over my head. I'm not a libertarian, nor do I even know what you're on about.

And it's not me saying the accord is a failure. UN admits it's a failure, maybe not in those words, but they admit the measures taken are not enough to meet the urgent demands they claim must be taken before 2030 to avoid "certain disaster." They simply can't get countries to voluntarily meet those demands no matter how much they fearmonger about the repercussions, likely because leaders of those countries know the consequences of attempting to do so.

They also notice how China, which now pumps out more pollution and greenhouse gases than the next three biggest sources (U.S., the E.U. and India) combined but are exempt from any of the regulations. Instead they just keep building one coal-powered plant after another and at some point in the future they promise that they'll eventually do better. But not today. Or tomorrow. Or even next year.

[seer]

"Woke" is now an official religion it seems.

‘What must true theologians think’: ‘Pagan’ Greta Thunberg receives theology doctorate | Watch (msn.com)

She has letters after her name. She is now an official idiot...

[Starlight]

And it's not me saying the accord is a failure. UN admits it's a failure

I invite you to post anything at all the UN has said negative about the Paris climate agreement. I would be genuinely surprised if there was literally anything at all you could cite.

maybe not in those words

Hmm. Almost like those words don't exist cos they've never said anything negative?

but they admit the measures taken are not enough to meet the urgent demands they claim must be taken before 2030 to avoid "certain disaster."

The Paris climate agreement says that countries have to continually increase their goals and measures over time. The UN saying that current measures are not enough and that countries should increase them is rhetorically consistent with that.

Paris Climate Agreement: "Everyone needs to do more."
UN: "Everyone needs to do more."

Sean: "I creatively reinterpret that as the UN is saying the Paris Climate Agreement is a failure".
Starlight:

They simply can't get countries to voluntarily meet those demands no matter how much they fearmonger about the repercussions

This claim can't be true yet because not enough time has yet passed to evaluate this. So, again, I've got to question your honesty and seriousness about this subject when you make intrinsically false statements like this.

likely because leaders of those countries know the consequences of attempting to do so.

Political leaders generally don't yet know the political consequences of attempting to meet climate change goals.

In my country, New Zealand, the current government seems fairly genuinely and honestly committed to trying to do our country's part on climate change. The Minister for Climate Change is from the Green party (a left-wing environmentalist party similar to the US Green party). The government basically said "we'd like to do our bit on climate change: Scientists, please tell us how best to do that." So they set up a science committee to investigate and report on how to do it. Politicians themselves can't magically know whether it would be better to plant trees, or to build solar panels, or to abolish cars, or to build nuclear power plants, or to make everyone live in hobbit holes, or to ban eating steak. So a group of scientists, economists, etc went through all the options in every industry and evaluated them etc. Their initial draft report, suggesting the best policies for some areas of the economy, only came out fairly recently. And it was... boring. They suggested pretty minor improvements across all sectors, and these minor improvements add up. Very few people are going to have to make any sacrifices.

Prior to that report coming out the politicians had no real idea of any of the details of what tackling climate change would involve. They didn't know if it would involve big sacrifices, small sacrifices, or no sacrifices. They didn't know if it would involve things that were politically unpalatable, or whether it would involve things that would upset the public.

And they still don't entirely know in New Zealand, because some areas of climate change policy have been further sub-contracted out to industry groups to analyze, propose, and report on, and those reports aren't yet in. Agriculture is one of the biggest industries in NZ, so anything that government does on climate change with regard to agriculture will be the most politically controversial or divisive. And the decisions around what should be done with respect to agriculture and climate change haven't been fully made yet, and are still being discussed by industry committees and science groups.

So, in a country that is genuinely making a good-faith effort to do serious carbon emission reduction and meet climate commitments and goals:
1. The policies that will be recommended to the politicians by the scientists, industry groups, and economists studying the options are still significantly To Be Determined and under vigorous study.
2. So the politicians don't fully know what policies their commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions will actually entail.
3. So the politicians are not in a position to assess what the electorate's response to those policies will be, because they don't yet know what they are.
I think they are working by the Paris Agreement timetable, which means they need to have most of their ducks in a row by the end of this year when they have the Dec 2023 conference where all countries bring their plans to the table and discuss each other's plans.

And this is in a country that's making serious efforts to do the right thing. The status is no answers yet, reports and recommendations still being generated.

In countries where the government has no interest in even trying, they will not be bothering to get any reports and recommendations generated, so they will know even less about what sort of policies would be suggested to them by scientists for meeting climate change targets in their countries. So they are simply not in any position to say anything close to "I know the populace would never tolerate me implementing the policies necessary to fight climate change", because they don't know what those policies are.

[Ronson]

They also notice how China, which now pumps out more pollution and greenhouse gases than the next three biggest sources (U.S., the E.U. and India) combined but are exempt from any of the regulations. Instead they just keep building one coal-powered plant after another and at some point in the future they promise that they'll eventually do better. But not today. Or tomorrow. Or even next year.

It's like they're all afraid of making China angry.

[Ronson]

The Minister for Climate Change is from the Green party (a left-wing environmentalist party similar to the US Green party). ..

You know you have troubles when your government has a "Minister for Climate Change."

[Starlight]

What we don't need are a gaggle elite climate cultists trying to make life difficult or impossible for those already here.

Would you accept them making life easier and better for those already here?

As I said earlier, as I see it, most good climate policies seem to be win-win. Cheaper power, cheaper cars, cheaper fuel, more forests, more jobs, etc. I don't really see what's not to like.

It goes without saying. The carbon footprint of 7.9 billion people today versus, say, 990 million 200 years ago would solve their "crisis" without any other measures applied.

I guess that is true, but it's just not something I've seen talked about in the context of any progressive or scientific discussions about climate change. I guess the average person starts at "let's build a few solar panels" rather than "let's kill 90% of the earth's population" when they are brainstorming the topic. Is this a common right-wing trope though, and should I be concerned? Are you guys cooking up "plan b: Mass genocide to address climate change when liberals fail with their climate change policies" in your libertarian / conservative circles?

[rogue06]

I guess that is true, but it's just not something I've seen talked about in the context of any progressive or scientific discussions about climate change. I guess the average person starts at "let's build a few solar panels" rather than "let's kill 90% of the earth's population" when they are brainstorming the topic. Is this a common right-wing trope though, and should I be concerned? Are you guys cooking up "plan b: Mass genocide to address climate change when liberals fail with their climate change policies" in your libertarian / conservative circles?

Thank you for your contributing an example of the sort of over-the-top hysteria that climate alarmists regularly engage in and why after several decades of being fed a steady diet of it, that many folks treat it no differently than the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

[Ronson]

Would you accept them making life easier and better for those already here?

As I said earlier, as I see it, most good climate policies seem to be win-win. Cheaper power, cheaper cars, cheaper fuel, more forests, more jobs, etc. I don't really see what's not to like.

I would support that, but that's not what I am hearing.

I guess that is true, but it's just not something I've seen talked about in the context of any progressive or scientific discussions about climate change.

Because, as I said, it goes without saying. I'm curious why the West seems to be supporting a never-ending war in Ukraine.

I guess the average person starts at "let's build a few solar panels" rather than "let's kill 90% of the earth's population" when they are brainstorming the topic. Is this a common right-wing trope though, and should I be concerned? Are you guys cooking up "plan b: Mass genocide to address climate change when liberals fail with their climate change policies" in your libertarian / conservative circles?

If Prince Philip hasn't reincarnated yet, then his elitist buddies are probably scheming. And no, conservatives have no Climate Change plans that I am aware of. It is mostly a Lefty alarmist topic.

[Sparko]

It goes without saying. The carbon footprint of 7.9 billion people today versus, say, 990 million 200 years ago would solve their "crisis" without any other measures applied.

I wonder when the climate alarmists will just start claiming that the body heat generated from 8 Billion people is causing global warming and we need to "reduce our population" with euthanasia in order to save the planet. Soylent Green!

[Starlight]

You know you have troubles when your government has a "Minister for Climate Change."

I don't know how to interpret this post...?
There are 72 ministerial portfolios currently in NZ (although it's common for a single politician to hold 3 portfolios), so there's ministers of many things.

I interpret the government
(a) creating the portfolio of "Minister for Climate Change" and
(b) appointing to it a politician from outside the current governing party (ministerial positions are nearly always held by politicians in governing parties) in order to specifically put someone from the environmentalist party in charge of it
to be both signs the current government is taking climate change, and their commitments to do something about it, really seriously.

[Starlight]

I wonder when the climate alarmists will just start claiming that the body heat generated from 8 Billion people is causing global warming and we need to "reduce our population" with euthanasia in order to save the planet. Soylent Green!

I did hear a scientist the other day say "waste heat" (generated from human civilization in general, e.g. from heating, power generation, industrial activity etc) will begin to be a problem in 400 years or so in terms of its planet-wide build up. I found that slightly alarming. I'd never heard of that before.

[Ronson]

I don't know how to interpret this post...?
There are 72 ministerial portfolios currently in NZ (although it's common for a single politician to hold 3 portfolios), so there's ministers of many things.

I interpret the government
(a) creating the portfolio of "Minister for Climate Change" and
(b) appointing to it a politician from outside the current governing party (ministerial positions are nearly always held by politicians in governing parties) in order to specifically put someone from the environmentalist party in charge of it
to be both signs the current government is taking climate change, and their commitments to do something about it, really seriously.

Do you also have a Minister for Ozone Depletion? Or a Minister for Solar Panels? It just smells like bureaucracy run amuck. Granted, Biden hired John Kerry as a "special envoy" for climate change, but when Biden is gone, so is Kerry and that hokey job. It isn't an official position and it carries no ministerial weight.

[Starlight]

As I said earlier, as I see it, most good climate policies seem to be win-win. Cheaper power, cheaper cars, cheaper fuel, more forests, more jobs, etc. I don't really see what's not to like.

I would support that, but that's not what I am hearing.

Well that's what we seem to be getting in New Zealand so far from a government keen to take climate-change action. And that's what AOC etc were proposing in their Green New Deal, and then Biden in his watered-down Build Back Better version of it.

I'm curious why the West seems to be supporting a never-ending war in Ukraine.

I think at the popular level it's a "they were invaded and are defending themselves bravely so we heart them" situation. At the political level it's military industrial complex lobbyist $$$, and long-standing anti-Russia geopolitics.

If you're suggesting it's climate change related, then a quick google tells me that the Nordstream pipeline breakage caused massive emissions as do the uncontrolled fires that have been raging in parts of Ukraine because of the war, so, not good.

[rogue06]

I don't know how to interpret this post...?
There are 72 ministerial portfolios currently in NZ (although it's common for a single politician to hold 3 portfolios), so there's ministers of many things.

I interpret the government
(a) creating the portfolio of "Minister for Climate Change" and
(b) appointing to it a politician from outside the current governing party (ministerial positions are nearly always held by politicians in governing parties) in order to specifically put someone from the environmentalist party in charge of it
to be both signs the current government is taking climate change, and their commitments to do something about it, really seriously.

72 government ministers for a couple of islands with a population just a bit larger than the population of the state of Alabama (which is ranked #24 in population).

I think I'm beginning to see the problem.

[Starlight]

They also notice how China, which now pumps out more pollution and greenhouse gases than the next three biggest sources (U.S., the E.U. and India) combined but are exempt from any of the regulations. Instead they just keep building one coal-powered plant after another and at some point in the future they promise that they'll eventually do better. But not today. Or tomorrow. Or even next year.

I've seen you guys make these claims about China doing nothing before.

Yet when I look at other sources I see things like:
- China's making and installing more solar panels than anyone else, now having over a third of the world's total solar.
- China's coming to dominate the electric car market. It's the world's largest purchaser of electric vehicles, with numbers increasing exponentially. It's company BYD is now the biggest producer of electric vehicles in the world.
- China's announced a new aim to plant and conserve 70 billion trees. It has also long had a Great Green Wall project running from 1978 to 2050 that involves planting trees in a swath 2,800 miles long to hold back the expansion of the Gobi desert. Analyses of this by the US govt and BBC have confirmed it appears to be working, now covering 190 thousand square miles according to satellite images, and pushing back the Gobi desert which had previously been expanding.
- China's stated that it's aiming for a 65% reduction in carbon emission by 2030 compared to 2005 levels

As far as I can see the "China's not doing stuff" is a conservative talking point that doesn't appear to have any basis in reality.