Greta Thunberg

4K8KW10 said:
Africa's population is never going to grow to 16 billion, even if because they can't produce so much food to feed themselves.
Are you talking about this:

Africa-4-billions.png

https://www.businessinsider.com/africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8

It's 4 billions, not 16 billions !



How is Greta responsible for Africa's population growth?



Comparing the production of carbon dioxide as a byproduct of this type of production process to the weight of the carbon dioxide production during fossil fuels burning?
Well, but fossil fuels don't produce only carbon monoxide but also hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, and people breathe, so also produce carbon dioxide..
Click to expand...

And this is why the push to reduce that population growth and eventually reverse it is so important. The more we can do to reduce that peak the better for everyone.


altus said:
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” ~ Richard Lindzen
Click to expand...

CO2 is not being considered poisonous/planet destroying by anyone sensible. The issue is the additional energy it traps in the atmosphere, which in turn will directly affect humans. The climate change movement and the push to reduce increased temperatures is is mostly a humanist/economic movement, not an environmental movement. Climate change is going to cost people, businesses and governments trillions, and cause the death of millions of people due to more extreme weather events and rising sea levels. That's the major issue, and why it's being taken seriously.

We know from the geological record that there is a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, and we also know from the geological record that increased temperature has a direct correlation with extreme weather events and rising sea levels. The beneficial by product is that it should help reduce environmental change for other species, many of who (again as seen in the geological record) won't be able to adapt fast enough to the change in temperature and environment.

The planet itself is not going to be destroyed. Life will bounce back in a couple of million years (the blink of an eye in the geological timescale), but the damage will have profound impacts on humanity in future.

And TBH if historians are seeing reduced pollution as flawed logic in future, I don't want to be a part of that future. The Earth will be a cess pit in that situation and I like wildlife and green spaces!
 
robgmun said:
What a pathetic come back, how about sending her to China and seeing some yellow faces that don't agree with her, or about some brown faces in India. They'd all laugh at her and probably kick her out. Or are you just using a little girl like other are to hide some anti-white bigotry?
Click to expand...

India would certainly laugh. The people there would point out they have far less of an affect on the environment and CO2 levels than the average westerner... They'd probably tell her to come back when Europe reduced their emissions to that of India per person.

In fact they wouldn't. The Indian versions of you perhaps, but the rather large and growing environmental movement certainly would not.
 
Smokey Deza said:
Who will do nothing.

I'm actually baffled that some people genuinely think Greta is actually going to have some sort of impact.

It's laughable.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on this one - I think she has genuinely increased the presence of these environmental concerns in people's minds generally on the other hand I'm not sure it will accomplish anything and depending on whose figures are correct potentially the pace of change is just far far short of having any material impact on the outcome.
 
The_Abyss said:
Reuters seems to think that Thunberg made quite a different to Swedish air travel in 2019, and could be influencing far greater change from the EU.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-europe-airlines-breakingviews-idUKKBN1Z10MW?taid=5e0df1b4b19b7e000192c647&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Click to expand...
In that article, they are absolutely not attributing changes to EU policy/legislation to Greta Thunberg.

Unless she's become leader of the Green MEPs in the EU, but I'm not aware of her being an MEP.

Or are the EU MEPs, EU commissioner, etc, taking instruction from Greta, now? You honestly think that?

This is exactly what I feared. Anyone who does anything good for the environment now has to share credit for their (real) work with Greta Thunberg, because obviously nobody had any plans or gave a crap before she came along and told them what to do.

And all the initiatives and policies coming online now obviously weren't in planning for years; no, they just came into being overnight when Greta started sending emails to various bodies and world leaders. They, seeing her divine halo, immediately put them all into action.

Thank **** for Greta, huh. Single-handedly saving the planet. Telling us all how to do it. Instructing the EU how to do it. According to you, having mis-read a Reuters opinion piece.
 
FoxEye said:
In that article, they are absolutely not attributing changes to EU policy/legislation to Greta Thunberg.
Click to expand...

He didnt say say they were, I imagine he was commenting on this part..

And then there’s Thunberg. In 2019, her flight-shaming movement contributed to a 4% decline in passengers through Sweden’s airports, according to operator Swedavia.
Click to expand...
Map that across Europe and carriers have a big problem. Assume a 5% jet-fuel duty and no free carbon credits, and easyJet’s 580 million euros of forecast 2020 operating profit drops to 465 million euros. But chuck in a peak-Greta 4% decline in passengers and it nosedives to just 150 million euros.
Click to expand...


I don't understand the point you are trying to say that she is taking credit for others work? I feel more like she is being credited for giving said work a wider audience, and being a bit of a leader for them.


It's funny really, I had decided to not fly any more before she was even born, but I'm not getting my knickers in a twist thinking it was her idea.
 
Threepwood said:
He didnt say say they were
Click to expand...
The_Abyss said:
Reuters seems to think that Thunberg ... could be influencing far greater change from the EU.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-europe-airlines-breakingviews-idUKKBN1Z10MW?taid=5e0df1b4b19b7e000192c647&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure those words mean what I am interpreting them to mean.

Unless English just changed sharply while I was away.
 
FoxEye said:
I'm fairly sure those words mean what I am interpreting them to mean.
Click to expand...
Really?

It's an article by Reuters (check!) part of which refers to a report from an airline operator that says during peak greta there was a 4% drop (check!)

Where in the quote you quoted does it say Abyss says he believes everything in the article is down to Greta? (no check)

Where does it say in the article that everything was down to Greta (no check)

Abyss says that Reuters seems to think that Greta made quite a difference to Swedish air travel (4%, check!) and that it could infulence EU air travel too...

Map that across Europe and carriers have a big problem.
Click to expand...

(check!)
 
Threepwood said:
Really?

It's an article by Reuters (check!) part of which refers to a report from an airline operator that says during peak greta there was a 4% drop (check!)

Where in the quote you quoted does it say Abyss says he believes everything in the article is down to Greta? (no check)

Where does it say in the article that everything was down to Greta (no check)

Abyss says that Reuters seems to think that Greta made quite a difference to Swedish air travel (4%, check!) and that it could infulence EU air travel too...
(check!)
Click to expand...
/le sigh

"The EU" has a well-understood meaning in the context of his quote.

I'm not going to bother going down rabbit-holes where the argument stems around re-interpreting well-known words and phrases to mean anything else. It's not interesting.

"The EU" doesn't mean "European air passengers". It just doesn't. Sorry. It doesn't also mean "European airlines".

"The EU" (aka "Brussels") means the legislative bodies of the EU, in the context of the quote, "influencing change from the EU".
 
^^ why are you talking about the bit he wasn't talking about? I really do not understand man.

Also, the bit that he is talking about isn't talking about the EU's legislative bodies, its talking about the other countries in the EU. Why would it be talking about anything else, it talks of the swedish airline, then goes on to say how that could effect the rest of the EU, as in other countries airlines, not the rest of the EU's legislative bodies, just follow the context.

Honestly, you're just making it up as you go along. Just accept she has had an effect, lol.
 
Threepwood said:
^^ why are you talking about the bit he wasn't talking about? I really do not understand man.

Also, the bit that he is talking about isn't talking about the EU's legislative bodies, its talking about the other countries in the EU. Why would it be talking about anything else, it talks of the swedish airline, then goes on to say how that could effect the rest of the EU, as in other countries airlines, not the rest of the EU's legislative bodies, just follow the context.

Honestly, you're just making it up as you go along. Just accept she has had an effect, lol.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Here, let's try this one more time.
The_Abyss said:
Reuters seems to think that Thunberg ... could be influencing far greater change from the EU.
Click to expand...
Tell me how you're so convinced that that doesn't mean Greta is influencing policy in the EU?

*I* said the article (which in itself is just an opinion piece) doesn't make that claim, and you went off on some weird "let's pretend that 'The EU' doesn't mean EU legislative bodies" argument.

That isn't an interesting point of debate, it's just bizarre. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

"Change from the EU". From the EU. The meaning is plain.

It doesn't mean EU commuters. It's means legislative change. Interpreting it any other way is willfully disregarding common meaning, and I have no interest in such "arguments".
 
FoxEye said:
Tell me how you're so convinced that that doesn't mean Greta is influencing policy in the EU?
Click to expand...
I read the article.


"From the EU" could mean anything depending on context.

The context of the article (where Greta is being talked about) was a drop of 4% during her peak of that year around then. You make it sound like they are talking about a 4% drop in EU legislation...
 
Thanks all, for accurately conveying my thoughts on my post while I was away and while some were triggered once again by the mention of Thunberg.

The real puzzle remains that so many seem to want the same outcome, but have such hostility, resentment and anger towards someone who might help achieve it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom