Greta Thunberg

[Nasher]

Why did they not roll out the blue hair whales, There is no way that fire hose is going to bully the UK's largest aquatic land mammal. They sent the soyboys out to do a mans job sheesh imagine 100 years from now and this is the species that fights actual fires and stuff.


Scary...

In 100 years they will be protesting for equal right for fire.

 

[Angilion]

His video on why Trump won should be mandatory viewing.

For anyone interested in politics, certainly. That's his best work amongst a lot of very high quality work. His videos are astute political commentary rooted in truth, as the best political comedy has to be. I'd put more weight on his predictions than I would on those of "serious" political commentators.

It's worth noting that the comedian himself (whose name I forget) doesn't do anywhere near as well because he's not actually that angry. For example, he lost a debate to Owen Jones because he's too timid to argue his position, so anyone can just steamroller over him. If he could come up with a more balanced position, a bit less timid than himself and rather a lot less angry than Jonathan Pie, he could make a name for himself in politics. But I guess that's not who he is. He's doing OK as a comedian for the time being, although he'll never be mainstream and he'll never know how long he has doing it because "liberals" will stop him.

That's a good video. Can concur your statement. And this is coming from someone that used to be somewhat liberal too. Definitely not anymore

I used to call myself liberal. My views haven't changed in decades, but "liberalism" certainly has. It's now about as anti-liberal as can be. Feminism and "progressivism" have pretty much succeeded in corrupting and thus destroying the concepts they're most strongly opposed to - equality, tolerance, diversity, liberalism and suchlike. Another very astute political commentator wrote extensively about the use of irrational prejudices and the corruption of language for the same purposes quite some time ago - George Orwell. So much so that it seems that modern "liberals" have read Orwell's dystopian political works and used them as a guidebook rather than a warning, but it might just be that Orwell's writing accurately applies to all such ideologies. Either way, they're certainly producing doubleplusgood blackwhite Newspeak that Minitru would be proud of.

 

[explicit4u]

The more "obese westerners" give in aid to keep poor people from starving the more those poor people procreate at their current high birth rates and the more aid needs to be given in the future, eventually it will reach a point where westerners are far poorer and less able to give aid and the poor people they were giving aid are no better off either just a lot more numerous.

If we want to help in places like Africa then it's self sustaining infrastructure they need, not handouts. What you're describing is basically world socialism and the end result of that will be that everybody except a tiny few suffers in poverty.

Well for starters Africa is a massive continent so the needs will differ greatly, have you ever been to an African country?

I'd 100% agree with you that things like self sustaining infrastructure are much better investments if we want poorer countries to prosper. China is pretty good at it although I'm convinced they have ulterior motives and the benefits of the infrastructure they're building in Africa mainly benefits the Chinese.

While I'm glad the UK is one of the leaders in giving aid, I don't think it's transparent enough and too much of it is not spent on things that would actually reduce poverty. Sort that out and the problem you mentioned doesn't exist. No matter where you go in the world reductions in poverty tend to lead to fewer kids being born, from a humanitarian and environmental standpoint it's in everyones interest to be spending on green self sustaining infrastructure.

I'm an advocate for something less capitalist and more socialist but I don't have the knowledge to suggest what that would be. Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production which is something I didn't mention in my post. There's plenty of resources to go around, it's the waste we need to be addressing because it's ridiculous (for example) for western countries to be throwing away so much edible food when there's people starving.

You are as bad as Thunberg, Human population at 7 billion has ruined the entire world. Look around the clothing these experts wear going to research climate change putting microplastics everywhere. If you are a human right now you are a problem, If you wear polyxxx clothes you basically shed plastic everywhere. So lets see pristine wilderness Antartica has microplastics in the snow now. How about Space? Yep it might even end up making humans bound to Earth unable to escape a minefield of litter look up space debris! Or what about the lowest part of Earth? Yup Marianas Trench has litter and do not get me started on the idiots who littered Everest for thier own egos oxygen tanks dead people and plastic clothing are all over the highest place on Earth.


Now for the History, How do you even call it climate change when they will not even talk about how the climate used to be? Europe and the UK like most of the world was deforested, And in Medieval times this accelerated wildly. So if you go back to before this started and you watch Ray Mears you learn that long before Britain got near 100,000 residents you could not see the sky bar river courses Britain BC actually had jungle canopy like the Amazon but with native species like Oak. Tree species were much much larger and back also and then you had bear and wolves in the UK and in mainland Europe you had a massive forest from Poland to Germany/Netherlanda with European Bison. So the land area they cut down if you look up the history and facts is easily 25% of the worlds tree cover. It probably equals the size of the Amazon and considering the tree size was much larger it must have seriously altered the oxygen levels and climate. The world we live in now is but a shadow of what it was meant to be so climate change is basically deforestation and human population. But you might not hear much about this because A history is a rare thing to study and B trees can not be exploited and taxed like humans. If you ran the world and were going to bail out in 90yrs you would want less trees and more of those juicy farmable humanoid$.

The number of people isn't as important as the way we're choosing to live. The first half of your post highlights this, alternatives are available, more sustainable ways of living are available but people are not utilising them as much as they should for whatever reason. This is where I'll side with Greta, putting pressure on business and governments to shape our lives to be more sustainable is something I fully support. I don't believe individual responsibility is as crucial as some people seem to think it is. People need to be told what to do and the society we live in should be moulded to make these choices as easy as possible for people to utilise.

Look into the reasons why people are cutting down forests, there's efforts to get people to avoid the causes of this (e.g. not eating land intensive meat/crops) but people are so hell bent on 'ma bacon!' that it continues*.

I'm happy to be disproved but all I've been taught and read indicates that cities are more efficient and sustainable than rural living. Apartments and high rises result in fewer trees being cut down than if everyone lived in houses.


*slightly disingenuous as change is hard, and the issue isn't exclusive to meat eaters

According to the UN it's possible there will be double the number of people on the planet by 2100. Normally this leveling out only happens with more of a middle class, usually a middle class forms from a baby boom. I don't think the world can afford a baby boom to be honest.

I think small scale conflicts and mass migration will be the story of the next 100 years. I feel quite privileged to have lived in this time of relative comfort.

Channel 4 news did a great piece on declining bio diversity last night which is good to see as climate change always seems to get talked about but never the fact that species are dying at unprecedented rates and arable land is disappearing fast.

Aren't we currently seeing a baby boom in these poorer countries? http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/

And that mass migration and conflict will only get worse with climate change.

It's a tricky situation, the current 'rich' countries were allowed to grow in ways that damaged the environment. If we allowed poor countries the same freedom they'd probably be a lot further ahead than they are now but the need to be 'green' is probably stunting their growth which has many pros and cons. As the first post I quoted pointed out we need to be helping these countries meet their needs in sustainable ways, it's a shame that some richer countries are getting more isolationist and people are starting to demand an end to foreign aid.

Biodiversity has always been talked about but it does seem to be perceived as one of the less important issues. I have seen an increase in talk about biodiversity, at least in terms of veganism which is a good thing but yeah, I'd agree with you that it isn't as high a priority as it should be.

Yes, this is a global issue. Those growing population zones though are a bomb waiting to go off, they are either going to do things the right way to sustain the population and not just increase pollution, over farm, deforest etc and give their citizens a good standard of life, or they don't do this and they become even more hellish places to live and everyone leaves and the real mass migration to the west occurs.

Hopefully they take the former path. I think for me this is where I dislike the attitude of 'well if those countries aren't going to help why should we bother'. Being green and sustainable should be the goal for all countries, western countries should be leading by example and providing blueprints for other countries to follow. Hopefully that will be enough to reduce the barriers to entry and make it a more ideal path to go down in the future.

 

[Rofflay]

I imagine Canada will face hoardes of Bangladeshi immigrants and they would be weak enough at the minute to roll over and take them in. Places like Canada isolated are the best places now and in the future to put the brakes on climate change. If Europe Russia America Brazil and Canada and China decided to protect and increase forest cover they could help out a lot in freezing the temperature rises. But what good will that be in a world where places like Nigeria and Bangladesh etc skyrocket with babyboomers? Look at India so many people they have not even got sanitation people poo on the railway tracks. And then you have first world problems where people argue about trees etc lol. To be honest we should start by doing a deal. We do the Forestation bit so Brazil Russia Europe USA Canada increases tree cover by 20% and these other places in return for foreign aid and cooperation reduce thier populations by 20% in return. This is a good deal it for me would be outrageous if some migrant landed in my hometown because of climate change they possible played a large hand in. You do not need to ask about the reaction here because it would be simple, They would be forcefully relocated.


But why did people wait so long to start to have these conversations? I consider myself pretty right on migration but like others who share the same views we would much rather it was humanely fixed now before conflict does arise. And when you think about it how does planting trees and using condoms and not having that second child hurt anyone? But if you leave it in 50 years time you will see some really violent things happen over this.

 

[Angilion]

[..] It's a tricky situation, the current 'rich' countries were allowed to grow in ways that damaged the environment. If we allowed poor countries the same freedom they'd probably be a lot further ahead than they are now but the need to be 'green' is probably stunting their growth which has many pros and cons. [..]

Either "green" is possible without ruining the economy or it isn't. Arguing both ways on an ad hoc basis in order to blame the "right" countries isn't an ethically good position. It might well be a politically useful one, but it's unethical.

If "green" is possible without ruining the economy, those "poor countries" you refer to would be in a better position than others because they have less old-fashioned infrastructure in the way. It's why, for example, Romania has the best internet in Europe. Besides, solar and wind power stations are cheaper than fossil fuel burning ones now and could easily completely replace them in a fully functioning national grid...or so we're told.

 

[dowie]

On that subject, I recommend Jonathan Pie's video "We've Reached Peak Nazi". I can't link to it here because it contains an abundance of swearing. Jonathan Pie is a character created by a comedian who specialises in political commentary. He's what used to be called a liberal (i.e. an actual liberal, the complete opposite of contempory "liberalism") and he's very angry. The videos are in the format of a reporter speaking to their cameraman before or after doing their piece to camera. They're better political commentary than most serious political commentary.

The comedian who co-wrote a lot of the Jonathan Pie stuff is called Andrew Doyle - he's also behind "Titania McGrath", I'm not sure he still writes for Jonathan Pie though, IIRC the actor who plays him (Tom Walker) writes it alone these days. He also had a successful Edinburgh Show this year (where Titania was played by an actress) and has launched a book:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180105636098580480

 

[explicit4u]

Either "green" is possible without ruining the economy or it isn't. Arguing both ways on an ad hoc basis in order to blame the "right" countries isn't an ethically good position. It might well be a politically useful one, but it's unethical.

If "green" is possible without ruining the economy, those "poor countries" you refer to would be in a better position than others because they have less old-fashioned infrastructure in the way. It's why, for example, Romania has the best internet in Europe. Besides, solar and wind power stations are cheaper than fossil fuel burning ones now and could easily completely replace them in a fully functioning national grid...or so we're told.

I'm not trying to argue both ways, and being 'green' is about more than just energy production.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on any of this but a quick google suggests that green energy generation can be cheaper than fossil fuels in the right circumstances. I was more thinking about environmental laws and policies which are more expensive (at least for the companies) than just not caring at all and doing things like dumping waste.

Also I'm not sure I follow your point about Romania? From what I remember they have fast internet due to a low population, (relatively) low penetration rate, many small local ISPs, and the fact that cabling was historically above ground and therefore cheaper to run.

 

[Rofflay]

The comedian who co-wrote a lot of the Jonathan Pie stuff is called Andrew Doyle - he's also behind "Titania McGrath", I'm not sure he still writes for Jonathan Pie though, IIRC the actor who plays him (Tom Walker) writes it alone these days. He also had a successful Edinburgh Show this year (where Titania was played by an actress) and has launched a book:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180105636098580480

Funny but jokes aside why Russia tho lol Russia (Not Soviet era) is an ideal population model 144 million on 11% of the Earth? Sounds good imagine how much land and resources each person would have. Why are Russians not extremely rich people? They should have free land about a minimum of 5 acres per per person, Free wood for the fire and water and stove etc. There would be huge amounts of Forest and grazing land so food would be plentyful and cheap. And there would still be enough for exports Russians even tend to use a lot of wood in thier homes too.

You see the problem here though, While she was joking she was also in the PC straitjacket because that is why she said Russia saying China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan is still taboo. Thats why were never going to defeat climate change because people view it as a white race problem. When actually ALL the climate change movements are coming from us and we tend to mostly have much better and sustainable population models.

 

[dowie]

Funny but jokes aside why Russia tho lol Russia (Not Soviet era) is an ideal population model 144 million on 11% of the Earth? Sounds good imagine how much land and resources each person would have. Why are Russians not extremely rich people? They should have free land about a minimum of 5 acres per per person, Free wood for the fire and water and stove etc. There would be huge amounts of Forest and grazing land so food would be plentyful and cheap. And there would still be enough for exports Russians even tend to use a lot of wood in thier homes too.

You see the problem here though, While she was joking she was also in the PC straitjacket because that is why she said Russia saying China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan is still taboo. Thats why were never going to defeat climate change because people view it as a white race problem. When actually ALL the climate change movements are coming from us and we tend to mostly have much better and sustainable population models.

Eh? She's just a crazy lady having a rant, I'd not ponder too much over why she chose to mention Russia as opposed to say China etc... she was just ranting about the growing human population etc... albeit in a rather unhinged way.

 

[Angilion]

I'm not trying to argue both ways,

That would make you unusual. So you acknowledge that "going green" does, to use your own words, put countries a lot further behind and stunt their growth?

and being 'green' is about more than just energy production

Yes, but that's the most common focus. Also, I wasn't talking only about energy production either.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on any of this but a quick google suggests that green energy generation can be cheaper than fossil fuels in the right circumstances.

In that case countries that don't already have massive infrastructure in using fossil fuels would be at an advantage, not a disadvantage, because they wouldn't have to write that off, safely demolish it and rebuild.

I was more thinking about environmental laws and policies which are more expensive (at least for the companies) than just not caring at all and doing things like dumping waste.

That's a good point. Although the worst places are starting to do something about it. Not necessarily for the sake of "green" (although that's also good political points nowadays) but for the same reason countries that industrialised earlier did it earlier - it improves quality of life, especially in urban areas, and governments need at least acceptance from most of the population even if they're not elected. Beijing in the mid 2010s, for example, was like London in the early 1950s in terms of air pollution - it got so horrendously bad that the government had to force change in response to public demand. China could do it more harshly because it's not a democracy, but the situations and responses are broadly similar.

Also I'm not sure I follow your point about Romania? From what I remember they have fast internet due to a low population, (relatively) low penetration rate, many small local ISPs, and the fact that cabling was historically above ground and therefore cheaper to run.

Less existing infrastructure that needed to be dismantled and replaced in an inconvenient and very expensive way. Another example is the train service in the UK, which is greatly hindered by being reliant on very old infrastructure. Being an early adopter of a new technology has drawbacks when it requires infrastructure. The UK simply can't build a modern train network. Not without vast expense and vast disruption, which isn't politically viable. It would be cheaper and less disruptive to build one from scratch, but we can't because we already have one.

 

[rIcK]

Less existing infrastructure that needed to be dismantled and replaced in an inconvenient and very expensive way. Another example is the train service in the UK, which is greatly hindered by being reliant on very old infrastructure. Being an early adopter of a new technology has drawbacks when it requires infrastructure. The UK simply can't build a modern train network. Not without vast expense and vast disruption, which isn't politically viable. It would be cheaper and less disruptive to build one from scratch, but we can't because we already have one.

You also need the political will to do so. We build new roads all the time and all over the place, rail clearly isn't a priority. This can be seen by the constant increases in fares every year, yet fuel duty is consistently frozen.

 

[Rofflay]

You guys are lucky to even have rail, We used to have one my grandfather was a railway man but they dismantled it and now you have to take the bus. We need a cicular railway that is green in NI that loops around the same loop they used for Fibre and electric. But the only places you find rail now are the scenic North West coast from Londonderry to Portrush when it could loop the entire way to Larne then to Belfast and back around to Londonderry again through Newry Cookstown Strabane etc.


That would go well with the landbridge to Scotland they could link the Railway to Scotland if you can eletricfy trains then you can have a green mode of transport. But where is it? This would be better than HS2 if thiers 46bn from leaving the EU do it. At the minute im refusing to get a car, I have never been on a foreign holiday, I use Halogen over Oil central heating i think sometimes why bother when you look around everyone has a car, Thier social status symbols yet last week they found they are resonsible for soot inside the uterus and possible a lot of the diseases and defects formed in the womb could be from cars. Thats the crazy world we live in i do not get it at all... And funny enough living next to a road with sash windows we get some soot buildup now and again on the windowsill. And two doors down from me lives an Autistic young girl who sometimes i see standing in corners completely spaced out and i wonder could the links really be true. Do you think before Industrialization Autism etc existed on such a level?

 

[regulus]

No need for authorities to do anything. Just let them carry on and they will implode. Stuff like the fire engine incident just sets the tone really.

They aren't liberals, they are clowns. They don't have a clue what they are doing.

And yea "diversity" nonsense is being shoe-horned in to everything these days.

That's a great thing though. That ensures that it's only supported by the easily led, aka, young people and fringe lunatics, widely reported by the media to make it seem like it's more supported than it really is.

Sensible people stay far away from this nonsense.

 

[RxR]

It is possible to describe the triple fallacy complex at the root of her position, but it is constructive still to let a gadfly do its job when recovery via motion is necessary.

 

[Threepwood]

That would make you unusual. So you acknowledge that "going green" does, to use your own words, put countries a lot further behind and stunt their growth?

Surely those countries have a great chance at growing, but using different techniques to the ones in front of them? With sustainable energy and farming.

 

[b00merang69]

Well she now has something in common with Hitler they both have been put forward for a Noble Peace Prize (both cases are a joke IMO), I wonder what Adolf would think of today's PC world.

 

[Threepwood]

Well she now has something in common with Hitler they both have been put forward for a Noble Peace Prize (both cases are a joke IMO), I wonder what Adolf would think of today's PC world.

Yeah, you might want to look up Erik Gottfrid Christian Brandt's recommendation letter for Hitler, because it was indeed an ironic joke. Brandt was an anti-fascist btw.

 

[Nasher]

Well she now has something in common with Hitler they both have been put forward for a Noble Peace Prize (both cases are a joke IMO), I wonder what Adolf would think of today's PC world.

The Nobel peace prize is a joke. Look at the people who have got one or been put forward for one (like Tony Blair) :/

 

[GIBURROWS]

The Nobel peace prize is a joke. Look at the people who have got one or been put forward for one (like Tony Blair) :/

Maybe it was given to him because of him being so inept he couldn't cause a world war, not that he didn't try!

 

[Nasher]

Maybe it was given to him because of him being so inept he couldn't cause a world war, not that he didn't try!

It was right at the time he was the "middle east peace envoy" and it was all starting to kick off (and still is). Probably the worst period in 2000 years