Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Little Greta comes clean
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostThat anybody anywhere can be totally emission free anytime ever.
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 PostYes. 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.
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 PostHer motives are as stated in the op.
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 PostThat anybody anywhere can be totally emission free anytime ever.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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.
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.
After that, they argue, the cost and damage of climate change from not taking these radical steps will inflate exponentially."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
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 PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWe 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."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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:06 AM
|
3 responses
108 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 07:03 AM
|
16 responses
89 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-17-2024, 09:51 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
05-17-2024, 09:51 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
0 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 11:43 AM
|
217 responses
872 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by carpedm9587
Today, 08:04 AM
|
Comment