Greta Thunberg

Destination said:
I feel the opposite, pump money in, educate the living ***** out of them. Bring them up out of poverty with green planned business from a standing start, and provoke green farming, agriproduction etc.
Click to expand...
You can't tho, or rather we have been doing for yonks and the levels of corruption are so staggering that not much of it does any real good.

If you want to make the leaders and their cronies billionaires, this would be the way to do it :p

From everything I've ever read, corruption is the norm and the way of life out there. You can't do anything without bribing officials; police, civil servants, tribal leaders... literally everyone has their hand in the pot and wants their share.

Not so long ago I read a piece from an African commentator saying that government-to-government aid was a sham and should be ceased. Almost 100% of the money directly given by the UK govt to his (African) govt was used to buy Bentleys and other things for the leaders and their families.

You might want to "educate the **** out of them" but the barriers to actually doing that are much more than financial.

Right now the best way we could help is to stop sending them our waste and expecting them to be grateful for it. Those vids earlier were not the first many of us will have heard about it, but boy is it sad to watch them regardless :( It's shocking and horrifying how much we a) over-consume, b) throw away, and c) fluff our numbers to make it look like we're being responsible with our waste, rather than shipping it abroad to be someone else's problem.

I personally wear my clothes to absolute destruction, and get called a "tramp" by my family for doing so. But at least I can - in this one particular area - know that I am not the problem. People buying far more clothes than they could use in a lifetime, then dumping it all on charity shops... they must think twice. Just buy less, wear it longer... be more tramp, basically :p
 
Meddling-Monk said:
Unfortunately, this statement is not 100% true.

G6PD male and G6PD elderly female sufferer, representing here. Meat is what primarily helps sustains us here, and you know what? God/Mother Nature/Evolution made us the way we are, and we represent a non-insignificant portion of the Human population. We could live off plant only, but we'd also be killing ourselves too in the process due to various reasons associated with having G6PD, or being an elderly female with G6PD (which is basically any Female, since young eventually becomes old after all). So clearly that's not an option, and since it's not an option, the statement quoted above, is clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately your statement isn't 100% true.

Your deficiency means you must avoid beans and plants of g6pd origin. There is still literally millions of alternative edible plants.

What you really mean to say is it's easier to eat meat within the system we live in.....you'd not kill yourself if you didn't eat g6pd.

I'm personally a ceoliac vegan, I must avoid wheat / gluten as you must avoid beans. Neither condition means you can't be vegan.....you're simply not aware of other dietary options outside of your usual meals.

When I say I'm gluten free vegan people almost keal over confused with what I could possibly eat - you find out and research is the simple answer.

I'm not malnourished either, 13.5 stone in weight, best shape of my life.

8% of the worlds population suffers from this, hardly a massive majority.

Ironically it's probably a relative modern genetic condition (modern in geological age terms), that's a guess but for the first 1.8 million years 99% of human diet was plant based......it makes logical sense the genetic error appeared when humanity had a higher meat diet for the past few thousand years.
 
anyone read the 6nov Nigel Lawson spectator article

The Nigel Lawson - did I miss something ? wasn't sure if it was a parody or a serious piece .... but some salient points about the expense of net zero (*but* if the alternative is extinction)

Net zero is a disastrous solution to a nonexistent problem

Human folly is all too common. But in a long life I have never come across anything remotely as bad as the current climate scare. The government’s COP26 targets are ambitious (and eye-wateringly expensive). Amid the debate, one important question seems to be missing. Are we really facing an existential threat? Or might the climate change ‘crisis’ in fact be quasi-religious hysteria, based on ignorance?
It is true that, since the industrial revolution, when we began to use fossil fuels — first coal, then oil and gas — as our source of energy, this has led to a steady, albeit gradual, increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The know-nothings (notably but by no means exclusively the BBC) customarily refer to this as pollution. In reality, it is the very reverse: so far from carbon dioxide being pollution, it is the stuff of life. It is the food of plants, and without plants there would be little animal life and no human life.
The principal effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to stimulate plant growth, known as the fertilisation effect. Careful studies have shown that the planet is indeed becoming greener thanks to increased CO2. And yet we’re told that we need to prevent any further increase in CO2 in order to become ‘green’.
A secondary effect of increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is to warm the planet slightly. This is no bad thing: many more people die each year from cold-related illnesses than from heat-related ones. And the warming is very slight indeed. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an offshoot of the United Nations, the Earth is warming at a rate of at most one-sixth of a degree per decade, a barely perceptible amount.
And of course we don’t experience the mean global temperature anyway: we experience the temperature in our own neck of the woods, which varies enormously. Humankind is nothing if not adaptable. For example, the difference between the mean annual temperature in Finland, a cold place, and that in Singapore, a warm place, is some 22 degrees. And both these countries are pretty successful.

...
The economic cost of abandoning fossil fuels — what is nowadays known as net zero — is massive: even the Treasury admits that it will cost the UK tens of billions of pounds a year. That is why China, by some distance the world’s largest emitter of CO2, while paying lip service to the net-zero target, continues to build new coal-fired power stations hand over fist (and not just in China: it is also building them throughout much of the developing world).
Decarbonisation, in short, would be an unparalleled economic calamity. So how is it that the UK and most of the western world have signed up to it? The answer can only be conjectural. I suggested at the start that the current climate scare is a quasi-religious hysteria. Mankind seems to have a psychological need for a belief system. Traditionally in the West, this has been Christianity; but with the waning place of Christianity in the modern world, climate catastrophism has emerged to take its place.

.....
But whatever the cause of the climate change madness, the effect is clear. While global warming is not a problem, the policies intended to prevent it are a disaster.
Click to expand...
 
jpaul said:
anyone read the 6nov Nigel Lawson spectator article

The Nigel Lawson - did I miss something ? wasn't sure if it was a parody or a serious piece .... but some salient points about the expense of net zero (*but* if the alternative is extinction)
Click to expand...
I expected better from you. His article is garbage. He misses the point entirely yet it is right Infront of him ('the weather in our neck of the woods varies enormously' :rolleyes: ) and how cold issues are worse than hot illnesses? What a moron. Mods must condemn.
 
dLockers said:
I expected better from you. His article is garbage.
Click to expand...

Did you not have a pre-conceived idea on the (high) standard of spectator journalism ?

you've obviously heard the discourse on a referendum for the uk net zero plans, too,
as I implied, some of the article is junk, however comments on China, for example are the truth though - they are continuing with coal, as indeed,
I'd question if UK will have sufficient nuclear plants online for 20years so will continue with the drax biomass, gas stations, after euphoric Boris has retired.
 
dLockers said:
I expected better from you. His article is garbage. He misses the point entirely yet it is right Infront of him ('the weather in our neck of the woods varies enormously' :rolleyes: ) and how cold issues are worse than hot illnesses? What a moron. Mods must condemn.
Click to expand...
Have to agree; his logic is infantile (if it's not parody - I'm not sure?).

It's like saying, we need water to live, therefore the whole world being underwater is fine, yar? And drinking any amount of water could never be bad for you, aye? Because water good.

It's truly shocking that ignorance on those levels can be printed.
 
Lawson I think is a tit but it seems he is trying to deliver a Keep Calm and Carry on idea.

I doubt he has visited the areas where temps now reach 45 and 50 which is unliveable.
 
FoxEye said:
You can't tho, or rather we have been doing for yonks and the levels of corruption are so staggering that not much of it does any real good.

If you want to make the leaders and their cronies billionaires, this would be the way to do it :p

From everything I've ever read, corruption is the norm and the way of life out there. You can't do anything without bribing officials; police, civil servants, tribal leaders... literally everyone has their hand in the pot and wants their share.

Not so long ago I read a piece from an African commentator saying that government-to-government aid was a sham and should be ceased. Almost 100% of the money directly given by the UK govt to his (African) govt was used to buy Bentleys and other things for the leaders and their families.

You might want to "educate the **** out of them" but the barriers to actually doing that are much more than financial.

Right now the best way we could help is to stop sending them our waste and expecting them to be grateful for it. Those vids earlier were not the first many of us will have heard about it, but boy is it sad to watch them regardless :( It's shocking and horrifying how much we a) over-consume, b) throw away, and c) fluff our numbers to make it look like we're being responsible with our waste, rather than shipping it abroad to be someone else's problem.

I personally wear my clothes to absolute destruction, and get called a "tramp" by my family for doing so. But at least I can - in this one particular area - know that I am not the problem. People buying far more clothes than they could use in a lifetime, then dumping it all on charity shops... they must think twice. Just buy less, wear it longer... be more tramp, basically :p
Click to expand...
dumping it all on charity shops.

Some people can't afford to buy new clothes!
 
GIBURROWS said:
Oh no sorry I'm like your queen Greta, I have no ideas or solutions I just raise awareness.
Click to expand...

Well you don't seem very aware about population growth, how it has already peaked and the world population is expected to start falling after 2100. Most of the growth between now and 2100 will be in Africa so unless you want to go around and start sterilising them there is nothing you can do about population.
 
You can't say growth has peaked without assumptions, until population levels actually fall. A lot can happen over the 79 year period you cite.

Making it expensive in the extreme for people to have children and bring them up is an alternative to sterilisation. Stopping sending food aid to Africa is obviously going to help reduce growth there, unless you assume they are going to change their agricultural methods and meat production in short order the funding needs continuing year upon year. Just stop it...

The Chinese used the law to limit the number of children women could have. Stopping artificial fertilisation treatments is yet another way to help reduce growth.

Lots of ways are available.
 
Chris Wilson said:
You can't say growth has peaked without assumptions, until population levels actually fall. A lot can happen over the 79 year period you cite.

Making it expensive in the extreme for people to have children and bring them up is an alternative to sterilisation. Stopping sending food aid to Africa is obviously going to help reduce growth there, unless you assume they are going to change their agricultural methods and meat production in short order the funding needs continuing year upon year. Just stop it...

The Chinese used the law to limit the number of children women could have. Stopping artificial fertilisation treatments is yet another way to help reduce growth.

Lots of ways are available.
Click to expand...
We are coming up to a population crash, the Western governments know it, hence the 'uncontrolled' immigration.
Our whole way of life is built on a massive Ponzi scheme, once the birth rates drop too low who do you think it's going to pay for your future!
 
LabR@t said:
dumping it all on charity shops.

Some people can't afford to buy new clothes!
Click to expand...
Yes, dumping it. Because in many cases it's easier and quicker to offload unwanted/damaged clothing to a charity shop than try to sell it or take it to a recycling centre.

Second, over the years we've been so bombarded by adverts showing naked starving African kids, so that many people think they're all wandering around naked and destitute.

That leads people to think they're doing them a favour by dumping some really worn-out, damaged clothing on charity shops. And then you hear people saying things like, "Beggars can't be choosers." I've heard that when throwing away some really frayed, stained, end-of-life garments. "Why don't you take them to the charity shop? People in Africa would love to wear that!" No, no they wouldn't.

In recent times charity shops have stopped taking the absolute crap, but as those videos above clearly show, it's still reaching Africa in vast quantities. And unsurprisingly they're having problems dealing with the extreme amounts of textile waste generated because these clothes are worthless and unwanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom