Sept 25, 2019 7:32:17 GMT System said:

Has anyone in this thread actively set out and done something that would combat climate change?

There's a saying that no single raindrop feels it is responsible for the flood, and so while I don't do any one big thing I do a lot of little things -- some of which I feel most of us can do, some can't, but if we all do a little bit it'll add up to a lot.

I mostly try to reduce my consumption. If I bring my own coffee cup to work rather than using a disposable paper cup every day, and I use/wash my own fork for lunch, it's less cups and plastic forks that have to be produced and less consumables that have to be shipped via smog-belching trucks across the country. Same with bringing reusable bags to go grocery shopping.

I ride my bicycle to work a couple of days a week rather than the motor-powered cycle. I recognize this is not an option for a lot of people (distance, weather, off-hours commuting, having to drop off the kids at school on the way to work, disabilities) but sometimes I can so I do.

It's not a ton, but again if we all do a little bit IMO it should go a long way. Really, how hard is it to decide to put on a sweatshirt and a scarf if it gets cold rather than turn up the heat? Not asking anyone to give up worldly comforts and go live in a shack in the woods as a vegan here.

Sept 25, 2019 15:23:12 GMT RT said:

Sept 25, 2019 7:32:17 GMT System said:

Has anyone in this thread actively set out and done something that would combat climate change?

We tried to have solar panels installed on our roof but it was going to cost $25,000. Hopefully in the near future the price of that will come down and we can revisit it. And once our truck is paid off we’re buying a Tesla.

Other than that, we live as environmentally conscious as we can, and we vote for members of parliament that have good environmental policies.

There’s not a whole lot the average person can do other than that. The “well what have YOU done?” argument is kind of stupid too considering the average person doesn’t contribute to global warming like the factory down the stream pumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere with no repercussions. If I could walk into the building and shut the factory down I would, but that’s a felony, so...

I wrote a long post and lost it. 
We looked at solar panels for our house. 
The payback using their numbers which I think were grossly optimistic gave us about a 14 year payback and the technology is still pretty flakey I would be shocked if the system lasts 10 years
Systems in 5 years are likely to cost half as much and be twice as efficient. 

Tesla is a crock I mean whether you burn fossil fuel or plug into an electricity grid where someone else is burning them, what's the difference? 

Sept 26, 2019 0:22:09 GMT @admin said:

Sept 25, 2019 9:25:51 GMT iNCY said:

I don't think most people take issue with the notion of a cleaner environment, it has to be a good thing. If it was to take the destruction of our economies to achieve it... Then let's have that discussion,but if destroy your economy and the same products are manufactured in a different economy then it is for nothing.

All forms of carbon pricing and ets schemes work by bankrupting heavy emitting industries, so as long as we are all clear about what that looks like and understand what it is going to do to the sheer cost of electric cars etc.

The problem HR with your demographic is that they're all about idealism with no ideas about what the solution looks like. What is the solution? A workable solution? And how does a nation do it in isolation?

A big part of the problem is that there is no proper dialogue of what it would look like in our economies to meet the Paris climate targets. We are not going to hit the targets... Most nations aren't because nobody is going to accept a tiny house with one electric car no meat and a crippling increase in the price of everything.

I don't follow carbon pricing talk that closely but it barely took me more than a quick google search to find all sorts of studies that talk about reducing carbon emissions having a positive impact on the economy because of reduced agricultural productivity, increase in natural disasters, etc.  

I pay quite a lot of attention to public transport discourse so I'll go into a bit more detail on something that I do know a bit more about. Using our state government as an example - a relatively progressive government at that - current transport projects sit at about 17 billion on road related projects, compared to about 7 billion for public transport. When there is so much evidence out there that extending/widening/building new highways makes next to no difference in reducing traffic congestion, it is absolutely ludicrous that we are spending so much money on things that will result in no discernible improvements. Basically all money should be invested in public transport not only for environmental factors, but for all the other associated urban and social advantages.

If public transport wasnt such a wank I'd agree. 
In Melbourne every train line takes you into the city so it is often 2hrs to get anywhere other than the city.

As for carbon pricing... 
It is exactly what is sounds like, getting people to use less electricity by charging more for it. 
Who wants a 30% increase in the cost of everything?
That's what's so tiring about milennials they want to buy their coffees and post about climate change on their new iPhone. Then when you say that carbon pricing won't allow this... All of a sudden they're all socialists and expect that someone else is going to pay. 

Sept 26, 2019 4:18:07 GMT iNCY said:

If public transport wasnt such a wank I'd agree. 
In Melbourne every train line takes you into the city so it is often 2hrs to get anywhere other than the city.

As for carbon pricing... 
It is exactly what is sounds like, getting people to use less electricity by charging more for it. 
Who wants a 30% increase in the cost of everything?
That's what's so tiring about milennials they want to buy their coffees and post about climate change on their new iPhone. Then when you say that carbon pricing won't allow this... All of a sudden they're all socialists and expect that someone else is going to pay. 

Well exactly. The fact that PT isn't a viable option for a lot of journeys is why people are forced to own cars to commute. Government policy needs to be bold and forward thinking in order to influence and change people's behaviours. We shouldn't be allowing people to build big houses out in the new bumfuck invented suburbs that have no infrastructure, and we certainly shouldn't be spending money adding another lane onto the freeway so they can all sit in their single occupancy vehicles in a virtual carpark.

Obviously no one is going to be enthusiastic about increases to the cost of living - but it seems like that's happening even if there isn't a carbon price, and like Michi said before, if it means the difference between someone having the heating on at home or putting a jumper on because they're feeling it in their wallet, then that's probably a good thing. Obviously it all needs to be part of a joint effort - like moving away from coal infrastructure which is increasingly unreliable anyway.

Sept 26, 2019 4:45:07 GMT @admin said:

Sept 26, 2019 4:18:07 GMT iNCY said:

If public transport wasnt such a wank I'd agree. 
In Melbourne every train line takes you into the city so it is often 2hrs to get anywhere other than the city.

As for carbon pricing... 
It is exactly what is sounds like, getting people to use less electricity by charging more for it. 
Who wants a 30% increase in the cost of everything?
That's what's so tiring about milennials they want to buy their coffees and post about climate change on their new iPhone. Then when you say that carbon pricing won't allow this... All of a sudden they're all socialists and expect that someone else is going to pay. 

Well exactly. The fact that PT isn't a viable option for a lot of journeys is why people are forced to own cars to commute. Government policy needs to be bold and forward thinking in order to influence and change people's behaviours. We shouldn't be allowing people to build big houses out in the new bumfuck invented suburbs that have no infrastructure, and we certainly shouldn't be spending money adding another lane onto the freeway so they can all sit in their single occupancy vehicles in a virtual carpark.

Obviously no one is going to be enthusiastic about increases to the cost of living - but it seems like that's happening even if there isn't a carbon price, and like Michi said before, if it means the difference between someone having the heating on at home or putting a jumper on because they're feeling it in their wallet, then that's probably a good thing. Obviously it all needs to be part of a joint effort - like moving away from coal infrastructure which is increasingly unreliable anyway.

Okay... That's where we get scary, we shouldn't allow people? That's where the far left and far right have the same point on the authoritarian horse shoe. 

You could easily argue that socially minded democracies shield people too much from their cost of living pressures. Think about it we give welfare to about 40% of the population in some capacity and thereby allowing them to consume more.

All of the leftys I have heard speaking say that we should shield people from any increase in carbon pricing, but if it doesn't hurt everyone there will be no change. 

On the public transport front, for years I have found it nuts that we build freeways without leaving space on the middle for light rail. 
Look at the Eastlink, it's nuts... 

But perhaps the real solution is not to have giant commercial centres that people must travel into. 
Encourage remote working and businesses setting up regional offices. 
I don't believe in the eternal suburban sprawl but I have travelled a lot of the world and havent seen anywhere high density doesn't mean high crime and depressing. 

Sept 26, 2019 5:15:11 GMT iNCY said:

Sept 26, 2019 4:45:07 GMT @admin said:

Well exactly. The fact that PT isn't a viable option for a lot of journeys is why people are forced to own cars to commute. Government policy needs to be bold and forward thinking in order to influence and change people's behaviours. We shouldn't be allowing people to build big houses out in the new bumfuck invented suburbs that have no infrastructure, and we certainly shouldn't be spending money adding another lane onto the freeway so they can all sit in their single occupancy vehicles in a virtual carpark.

Obviously no one is going to be enthusiastic about increases to the cost of living - but it seems like that's happening even if there isn't a carbon price, and like Michi said before, if it means the difference between someone having the heating on at home or putting a jumper on because they're feeling it in their wallet, then that's probably a good thing. Obviously it all needs to be part of a joint effort - like moving away from coal infrastructure which is increasingly unreliable anyway.

Okay... That's where we get scary, we shouldn't allow people? That's where the far left and far right have the same point on the authoritarian horse shoe. 

You could easily argue that socially minded democracies shield people too much from their cost of living pressures. Think about it we give welfare to about 40% of the population in some capacity and thereby allowing them to consume more.

All of the leftys I have heard speaking say that we should shield people from any increase in carbon pricing, but if it doesn't hurt everyone there will be no change. 

On the public transport front, for years I have found it nuts that we build freeways without leaving space on the middle for light rail. 
Look at the Eastlink, it's nuts... 

But perhaps the real solution is not to have giant commercial centres that people must travel into. 
Encourage remote working and businesses setting up regional offices. 
I don't believe in the eternal suburban sprawl but I have travelled a lot of the world and havent seen anywhere high density doesn't mean high crime and depressing. 

Not allow in the sense that there needs to be greater control over town planning to stop the sprawl far exceeding the infrastructure rather than letting developers do whatever they want because they're making lots of money, not literally restraining people from living like that. I'm sure the majority of people are only there because they feel like it's their only alternative not because it's really ideal.

I'm sure you'll say this is the idealistic millennial in me but if top dick property developer applies to build 2500 houses on reclaimed farm land in whoop whoop, then make him put solar panels on all the roofs and front half the money towards servicing a bus route - and if he has to sacrifice buying a new Merc because his profit margin isn't quite as high then tough titties. 

iNCY yeah we had the same thing with our solar panels. Initial investment was insanely high, we would make it back in roughly 15 years, but there was only a 10 year guarantee on the system and the guy almost flat out told us we’d be replacing them every 10 years anyway.

Whatever show I was vaguely listening to while cooking dinner made a really good point. I can't remember the exact details, but will string something together from Wikipedia. 

Yes, Australia produces very little of the World's total emissions - a point conservative politicians and alike will frequently reference. But this is solely because of our tiny population of 25 million or 0.33% of the global population. Not because of some joint effort to be good. However, when you broke it down, per person, we were the highest of any developed nation. Out of excess for one (Big houses, Big Cars) but also driven by aluminium smelt and export, lack of real alternative sources of electricity outside of coal gas.
 Agriculture. And a bastard of a hot climate that requires 24/7 air-conditioning. 

Sept 26, 2019 5:40:55 GMT @admin said:

Sept 26, 2019 5:15:11 GMT iNCY said:

Okay... That's where we get scary, we shouldn't allow people? That's where the far left and far right have the same point on the authoritarian horse shoe. 

You could easily argue that socially minded democracies shield people too much from their cost of living pressures. Think about it we give welfare to about 40% of the population in some capacity and thereby allowing them to consume more.

All of the leftys I have heard speaking say that we should shield people from any increase in carbon pricing, but if it doesn't hurt everyone there will be no change. 

On the public transport front, for years I have found it nuts that we build freeways without leaving space on the middle for light rail. 
Look at the Eastlink, it's nuts... 

But perhaps the real solution is not to have giant commercial centres that people must travel into. 
Encourage remote working and businesses setting up regional offices. 
I don't believe in the eternal suburban sprawl but I have travelled a lot of the world and havent seen anywhere high density doesn't mean high crime and depressing. 

Not allow in the sense that there needs to be greater control over town planning to stop the sprawl far exceeding the infrastructure rather than letting developers do whatever they want because they're making lots of money, not literally restraining people from living like that. I'm sure the majority of people are only there because they feel like it's their only alternative not because it's really ideal.

I'm sure you'll say this is the idealistic millennial in me but if top dick property developer applies to build 2500 houses on reclaimed farm land in whoop whoop, then make him put solar panels on all the roofs and front half the money towards servicing a bus route - and if he has to sacrifice buying a new Merc because his profit margin isn't quite as high then tough titties. 

Except that isn't what would happen. It would just drive up the price for the consumer, and the level of millennial complaining in Australia about not being able to be home-owners is already through the roof.

Sept 26, 2019 5:40:55 GMT @admin said:

Sept 26, 2019 5:15:11 GMT iNCY said:

Okay... That's where we get scary, we shouldn't allow people? That's where the far left and far right have the same point on the authoritarian horse shoe. 

You could easily argue that socially minded democracies shield people too much from their cost of living pressures. Think about it we give welfare to about 40% of the population in some capacity and thereby allowing them to consume more.

All of the leftys I have heard speaking say that we should shield people from any increase in carbon pricing, but if it doesn't hurt everyone there will be no change. 

On the public transport front, for years I have found it nuts that we build freeways without leaving space on the middle for light rail. 
Look at the Eastlink, it's nuts... 

But perhaps the real solution is not to have giant commercial centres that people must travel into. 
Encourage remote working and businesses setting up regional offices. 
I don't believe in the eternal suburban sprawl but I have travelled a lot of the world and havent seen anywhere high density doesn't mean high crime and depressing. 

Not allow in the sense that there needs to be greater control over town planning to stop the sprawl far exceeding the infrastructure rather than letting developers do whatever they want because they're making lots of money, not literally restraining people from living like that. I'm sure the majority of people are only there because they feel like it's their only alternative not because it's really ideal.

I'm sure you'll say this is the idealistic millennial in me but if top dick property developer applies to build 2500 houses on reclaimed farm land in whoop whoop, then make him put solar panels on all the roofs and front half the money towards servicing a bus route - and if he has to sacrifice buying a new Merc because his profit margin isn't quite as high then tough titties. 

I have no problem with a user pays model as you suggest, but why stop there?
Should people get welfare for all five of their children?
Should it cost the same for an internet connection for someone in Richmond as someone in Waga Waga?
The more we subsidise people the more they breed and consume.

Sept 26, 2019 12:54:29 GMT NATH45 said:

Whatever show I was vaguely listening to while cooking dinner made a really good point. I can't remember the exact details, but will string something together from Wikipedia. 

Yes, Australia produces very little of the World's total emissions - a point conservative politicians and alike will frequently reference. But this is solely because of our tiny population of 25 million or 0.33% of the global population. Not because of some joint effort to be good. However, when you broke it down, per person, we were the highest of any developed nation. Out of excess for one (Big houses, Big Cars) but also driven by aluminium smelt and export, lack of real alternative sources of electricity outside of coal gas.
 Agriculture. And a bastard of a hot climate that requires 24/7 air-conditioning. 

No arguments... But for what reason should bmwe destroy our economy if the world doesn't follow? Do we think switching off our aluminium smelters will cause that same aluminium to not be made elsewhere?

iNCY totally agree on that front.

Mining, industry, agriculture, big business creates jobs. Jobs means money is spent locally, that in turn creates more jobs, and it goes round and round. And while big business is booming, those on the peripheral are doing the same.

They were discussing this on Hack on Triple J last night, apart from the girl being interviewed saying ‘emotion’ 12 times in the time it took me to back out the drive way. A point was raised, and I’ll sum it up (as she was a professional millennial idiot)

Let say the coal industry said, they will cut emissions by 10%. Simply by reducing the amount of coal burnt and turned into electricity. To keep things simply: as a result workload is reduced by 10% and requires a redundancy of 10% of their work force - I’m using round numbers, not exact science.

Instead they build, invest and develop alternatives to make up that 10% reduction in coal power (ie: solar, wind, etc) and move that 10% of their work force to work in that sector. No jobs lost.

It could be all lefty bullshit, but not an awful idea.

The first step to stopping climate change is to turn the billionaires- especially oil magnates who've known about the reaL, harmful effects of global warming since the 60s- into compost.

Sept 28, 2019 22:19:11 GMT KITN said:

The first step to stopping climate change is to turn the billionaires- especially oil magnates who've known about the reaL, harmful effects of global warming since the 60s- into compost.

Pure jingoistic nonsense.  Those billionaires and oil magnates weren't rubbing their hands together and cackling about the ways they could ruin the environment.  They got rich fulfilling a PUBLIC DEMAND.    

So unless you ride a bike everywhere you go, never heat your house in the winter, light your house with candles,  shower with cold water and are a strict vegan you nor anyone else has right to talk about the greedy billionaires and oil magnates ruining the environment.   Because as much as people may  bitch about climate change, they bitch 10x harder if all oil production stopped and they couldn't drive to work in the morning.

Sept 28, 2019 22:34:30 GMT thereallt said:

So unless you ride a bike everywhere you go, never heat your house in the winter, light your house with candles,  shower with cold water and are a strict vegan you nor anyone else has right to talk about the greedy billionaires and oil magnates ruining the environment.

Outrageous logic. That's like saying we have no right to talk about or criticise military policy unless we don our camo suits, get an assault rifle, and fly to Syria or wherever.

The individual cannot make a dint in the greenhouse gas emissions. It needs to be done on a national, or global, scale. World leaders need to introduce policies and technologies to make it feasible for people to maintain more eco-friendly practices while still being able to live their lives. In most countries, USA especially, it's virtually impossible for the average person to do anything without a car, and that's just one example.

The only way that one individual person can make a dent on global climate change as opposed to a corporation or a country is that one person can technically kill a billionaire.

Also, capitalism is just the worst.

Emperor, spot on. In Australia, in the regional 'cities' the sprawl is surprisingly enormous. Not owning a car, is a death sentence. 

I live in regional Australia, the 'Greater City' as it's called here in my neck of the woods, is 2,422 km2 (935.1 sq mi) with a population of just 64,000. Although, the actual urban 'City' area is still 248.9 km2 (96.1 sq mi) with just 50,000. 

In contrast, Nijmegen in The Netherlands, where my Father's family is from is just 57.60 km2 (22.24 sq mi) with a population of 175,002. You can ride a bike almost everywhere. And this is the same across Europe. So when the Europeans talk about changing one's culture around climate change, it's incredible easy compared to those living in much larger countries. Turn some lights off and ride a bike, and you've won the climate change challenge. 

Yes, there's a lot of variables here. There's 17 Million dutch people living in an area just 16,040 sq mi. And 26 Million of us spread over a vast continent. And most of these European cities and towns were planned long before the arrival of the car. 

But because of the availability of land, we go out further, build bigger houses on bigger blocks. New houses can include 4 bedrooms, plus study, plus 2 living spaces and if you're lucky a media room. To drive 70-80 km (43-50 mi) twice daily in a large car for work isn't uncommon. Include the daily commute on top of your massive home, and yes you are contributing. 

Sept 29, 2019 0:40:23 GMT KITN said:

The only way that one individual person can make a dent on global climate change as opposed to a corporation or a country is that one person can technically kill a billionaire.

Also, capitalism is just the worst.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it is by far the best economic system there is.

BTW all of these wonderful energy efficient technologies?   All developed by capitalist nations.

Sept 28, 2019 23:47:44 GMT Emperor said:

Sept 28, 2019 22:34:30 GMT thereallt said:

So unless you ride a bike everywhere you go, never heat your house in the winter, light your house with candles,  shower with cold water and are a strict vegan you nor anyone else has right to talk about the greedy billionaires and oil magnates ruining the environment.

Outrageous logic. That's like saying we have no right to talk about or criticise military policy unless we don our camo suits, get an assault rifle, and fly to Syria or wherever.

The individual cannot make a dint in the greenhouse gas emissions. It needs to be done on a national, or global, scale. World leaders need to introduce policies and technologies to make it feasible for people to maintain more eco-friendly practices while still being able to live their lives. In most countries, USA especially, it's virtually impossible for the average person to do anything without a car, and that's just one example.

He wasn't talking about world leaders or global policy.  He was going on about some ignorant bullshit about billionaires and oil magnates.    I find it very hypocritical to use the products that make them rich while calling for their death or downfall.

Sept 27, 2019 22:56:25 GMT NATH45 said:

iNCY totally agree on that front.

Mining, industry, agriculture, big business creates jobs. Jobs means money is spent locally, that in turn creates more jobs, and it goes round and round. And while big business is booming, those on the peripheral are doing the same.

They were discussing this on Hack on Triple J last night, apart from the girl being interviewed saying ‘emotion’ 12 times in the time it took me to back out the drive way. A point was raised, and I’ll sum it up (as she was a professional millennial idiot)

Let say the coal industry said, they will cut emissions by 10%. Simply by reducing the amount of coal burnt and turned into electricity. To keep things simply: as a result workload is reduced by 10% and requires a redundancy of 10% of their work force - I’m using round numbers, not exact science.

Instead they build, invest and develop alternatives to make up that 10% reduction in coal power (ie: solar, wind, etc) and move that 10% of their work force to work in that sector. No jobs lost.

It could be all lefty bullshit, but not an awful idea.

What people also don't realise is the huge increase in costs that renewable electricity brings. 
There is no renewable energy that can do base load power, so we still need our fossil fuel power plants, except they are now being used at a lower capacity but still need to run at 100% when there is no sun or wind. This means you effectively have to build and maintain two complete energy production systems. 
It's why solar panels on the roof should be subsidised in some way. No loss of readmission. 

Sept 28, 2019 22:19:11 GMT KITN said:

The first step to stopping climate change is to turn the billionaires- especially oil magnates who've known about the reaL, harmful effects of global warming since the 60s- into compost.

Elon Musk is a billionaire. 

Sept 28, 2019 23:47:44 GMT Emperor said:

Sept 28, 2019 22:34:30 GMT thereallt said:

So unless you ride a bike everywhere you go, never heat your house in the winter, light your house with candles,  shower with cold water and are a strict vegan you nor anyone else has right to talk about the greedy billionaires and oil magnates ruining the environment.

Outrageous logic. That's like saying we have no right to talk about or criticise military policy unless we don our camo suits, get an assault rifle, and fly to Syria or wherever.

The individual cannot make a dint in the greenhouse gas emissions. It needs to be done on a national, or global, scale. World leaders need to introduce policies and technologies to make it feasible for people to maintain more eco-friendly practices while still being able to live their lives. In most countries, USA especially, it's virtually impossible for the average person to do anything without a car, and that's just one example.

That is beyond ironic, people argue that there nation should destroy its economy making changes to lower carbon even if it has a negligible effect on the world stage. Couldn't all of these people halve their energy consumption tomorrow? 

Sept 29, 2019 0:40:23 GMT KITN said:

The only way that one individual person can make a dent on global climate change as opposed to a corporation or a country is that one person can technically kill a billionaire.

Also, capitalism is just the worst.

I love capitalism so much.
Socialism on the other hand is populated exclusively by lazy do nothing dreamers who would be the first against the wall in theLeninist society they dream of 

Sept 29, 2019 1:10:39 GMT NATH45 said:

In contrast, Nijmegen in The Netherlands, where my Father's family is from is just 57.60 km2 (22.24 sq mi) with a population of 175,002. You can ride a bike almost everywhere. And this is the same across Europe. So when the Europeans talk about changing one's culture around climate change, it's incredible easy compared to those living in much larger countries. Turn some lights off and ride a bike, and you've won the climate change challenge. 

I went to Denmark last year, and in the centre of Copenhagen the cyclists outnumbered the cars five to one. It blew my mind. This is something that should be achievable in the UK too for a lot of people, but cars still dominate the roads and cyclists are rare. There is a strong anti-cyclist contingent in my country because car drivers find them annoying, or something.

That said, we do have a pretty good, nation-spanning public transport system. Trains and buses everywhere. These are widely used. I get around almost exclusively by train and on foot. But there are still plenty of places in England where it's not at all feasiable to not own a car.

Sept 29, 2019 1:33:32 GMT thereallt said:

He wasn't talking about world leaders or global policy.  He was going on about some ignorant bullshit about billionaires and oil magnates.    I find it very hypocritical to use the products that make them rich while calling for their death or downfall.

Sure, this I can get on board with. But still, we are practically forced to use coal and oil for the time being, otherwise we wouldn't be able to live our lives.

Sept 29, 2019 8:42:34 GMT iNCY said:

That is beyond ironic, people argue that there nation should destroy its economy making changes to lower carbon even if it has a negligible effect on the world stage. Couldn't all of these people halve their energy consumption tomorrow? 

Clearly there is going to be some economic cost to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Such things can only be done gradually, I guess. It's sacrifice/compromise for the greater good. But this talk of "destroying the economy" strikes me to be just as hyperbolic as the left saying "the world will end in 10 years if we don't do anything".

Sept 29, 2019 10:55:54 GMT Emperor said:

Sept 29, 2019 1:10:39 GMT NATH45 said:

In contrast, Nijmegen in The Netherlands, where my Father's family is from is just 57.60 km2 (22.24 sq mi) with a population of 175,002. You can ride a bike almost everywhere. And this is the same across Europe. So when the Europeans talk about changing one's culture around climate change, it's incredible easy compared to those living in much larger countries. Turn some lights off and ride a bike, and you've won the climate change challenge. 

I went to Denmark last year, and in the centre of Copenhagen the cyclists outnumbered the cars five to one. It blew my mind. This is something that should be achievable in the UK too for a lot of people, but cars still dominate the roads and cyclists are rare. There is a strong anti-cyclist contingent in my country because car drivers find them annoying, or something.

That said, we do have a pretty good, nation-spanning public transport system. Trains and buses everywhere. These are widely used. I get around almost exclusively by train and on foot. But there are still plenty of places in England where it's not at all feasiable to not own a car.

Sept 29, 2019 1:33:32 GMT thereallt said:

He wasn't talking about world leaders or global policy.  He was going on about some ignorant bullshit about billionaires and oil magnates.    I find it very hypocritical to use the products that make them rich while calling for their death or downfall.

Sure, this I can get on board with. But still, we are practically forced to use coal and oil for the time being, otherwise we wouldn't be able to live our lives.

Sept 29, 2019 8:42:34 GMT iNCY said:

That is beyond ironic, people argue that there nation should destroy its economy making changes to lower carbon even if it has a negligible effect on the world stage. Couldn't all of these people halve their energy consumption tomorrow? 

Clearly there is going to be some economic cost to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Such things can only be done gradually, I guess. It's sacrifice/compromise for the greater good. But this talk of "destroying the economy" strikes me to be just as hyperbolic as the left saying "the world will end in 10 years if we don't do anything".

Have you done any research on what meeting the Paris climate targets looks like?

Here's an excerpt from an article on Canada

In 2019, the carbon price starts at $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide released. That translates to an additional 4.4 cents per litre of gasoline.

The tax will increase annually, reaching $50 per tonne in 2022. By then the gasoline tax will be 11 cents per litre.

The total cost for an individual will depend on how much fossil fuel energy they use. Those who drive more or heat large homes with fossil fuels will pay more than the average, while those who use less, say by taking public transit, will pay less.


Carbon taxes encourage people to find ways to conserve energy by taking public transit instead of driving, for example. (Shutterstock)
The average household cost from the federal carbon tax will range from $200 per year in New Brunswick to $400 in Saskatchewan, which relies more on coal to generate electricity.

To achieve the changes required the estimated carbon price is $70 per tonne which is up to $1400 per year. Not counting the knock on price of energy to everything, particularly food.

It's electoral suicide 
I am above all things a realist, we are not going to stop climate change until it is too late, so we need to shift our focus to living in a hotter world and everything that entails. 
Smart money is pouring resources into more efficient nuclear reactions and developing nuclear fusion and hope it comes early enough to save us. 

This headline from a satire news page:

“ A 16-year-old who is fluent in at least two languages and responsible for a rapidly changing consensus towards climatology, is an idiot, according to lots of old people.“

lol.

On that. Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realise, that half of them are stupider than that.

Some people are in fact, even stupider than your average NPC - absolute no thought process beyond the very basic of human needs. Unintelligent, unemployable, poorly educated individuals. Border-line spastics - those absolute burdens on health, welfare, police and emergency departments. 

And then someone intelligent, articulate, from a privileged background is telling these people, that an endangered pod of seals off the coast of New Zealand is dying out due to rising global temperatures bought on by climate change as a result of rising CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. They're kidding themselves, wasting their time trying to convince these functioning retards to curb their carbon footprint, when their only concern for the day, is the same it was yesterday - the price cigarettes.

Then there are those battlers. Barely putting food on the table, with the cost of living bearing down on them daily - working 40, 50, 60 hours a week on minimal wage to support a family. Maybe it's a farmer, working 15 hrs a day, 7 days a week. And then a sapiosexual university student, studying an arts degree, begins telling these families they need to find a more efficient way to live their life, because a glacier on a mountain, in a country they've never heard of, has receded 100 m in 10 years. 

Unfortunately, you've then got the same old men on television ranting about things like political correctness, anti-immigration, and protecting their Second Amendment rights, also ranting about the great climate change myth, simply pandering to the absolute lowest common denominator. That majority who hasn't taken the time to even reflect on the debate, let alone try to understand it. 


In Australia there's something known as the 'Tall poppy syndrome' - describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. And this is exactly what is happening in this debate. People may not understand the politics or policy, but they certainly see and understand the class divide. I'm not saying this is 100% true for all those on either side of the debate, but it's very much the privileged lecturing those less fortunate (both of varying degrees)

Sept 30, 2019 10:51:53 GMT NATH45 said:

This headline from a satire news page:

“ A 16-year-old who is fluent in at least two languages and responsible for a rapidly changing consensus towards climatology, is an idiot, according to lots of old people.“

lol.

On that. Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realise, that half of them are stupider than that.

Some people are in fact, even stupider than your average NPC - absolute no thought process beyond the very basic of human needs. Unintelligent, unemployable, poorly educated individuals. Border-line spastics - those absolute burdens on health, welfare, police and emergency departments. 

And then someone intelligent, articulate, from a privileged background is telling these people, that an endangered pod of seals off the coast of New Zealand is dying out due to rising global temperatures bought on by climate change as a result of rising CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. They're kidding themselves, wasting their time trying to convince these functioning retards to curb their carbon footprint, when their only concern for the day, is the same it was yesterday - the price cigarettes.

Then there are those battlers. Barely putting food on the table, with the cost of living bearing down on them daily - working 40, 50, 60 hours a week on minimal wage to support a family. Maybe it's a farmer, working 15 hrs a day, 7 days a week. And then a sapiosexual university student, studying an arts degree, begins telling these families they need to find a more efficient way to live their life, because a glacier on a mountain, in a country they've never heard of, has receded 100 m in 10 years. 

Unfortunately, you've then got the same old men on television ranting about things like political correctness, anti-immigration, and protecting their Second Amendment rights, also ranting about the great climate change myth, simply pandering to the absolute lowest common denominator. That majority who hasn't taken the time to even reflect on the debate, let alone try to understand it. 


In Australia there's something known as the 'Tall poppy syndrome' - describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. And this is exactly what is happening in this debate. People may not understand the politics or policy, but they certainly see and understand the class divide. I'm not saying this is 100% true for all those on either side of the debate, but it's very much the privileged lecturing those less fortunate (both of varying degrees)

I don't think Greta is any stupider than many other 16yo's floating around out there.
It is just annoying seeing her paraded around like some sort of puppet.

Until she came on the scene I think people would have been reasonably confident that an autistic 16yo girl could make the case without becoming the target of vitriol.... Well there goes that theory.
Still don't like a 16yo lecturing the world on things she knows nothing about.

I'm also a bit tired of people talking about the "battlers" in Australia, someone needs to tell them that the middle class in Australia lives better than 99% of the middle class in the rest of the world.

The last three posts are great. jTjohncenaGOAT, you are spot on, and this is also what I believe. The average human, myself included, doesn't have the conviction, belief, or willpower to make sacrifices to combat climate change. Although you can read dozens of stories online of people who have done remarkable things to reduce their carbon footprint, these isolated cases have little impact, besides demonstrating that it maybe can be done. But in general, the message will never be received by the masses because of what NATH45 wrote.

However, jTjohncenaGOAT, you misinterpreted my point, which was that an individual can do everything in his power to reduce their carbon footprint, without changing anything. The only way an individual can cause real change is to inspire a legion of individuals to do the same, as Martin Luther King and his co-activitsts did. But then it isn't really an individual anymore. You could argue that Greta is trying to achieve the same thing, to inspire others to her cause, and she's probably already reasonably successful in that.

The reason more people in America don't use public transport is that public transport in America is godawful. In nearly every other country with access to them, trains move faster, and bus routes and schedules are more convenient. But here, they're fucked, because if they're fucked, then you'll buy a car, even if you live in a city. Or, in shorter words: Fucking capitalism.

Oct 1, 2019 1:06:55 GMT KITN said:

The reason more people in America don't use public transport is that public transport in America is godawful. In nearly every other country with access to them, trains move faster, and bus routes and schedules are more convenient. But here, they're fucked, because if they're fucked, then you'll buy a car, even if you live in a city. Or, in shorter words: Fucking capitalism.

And what you would replace capitalism with?   Socialism has been a miserable failure everywhere it's been tried.   Just ask Cuba and Venezuela.   

Sept 30, 2019 17:49:33 GMT Emperor said:

However, jTjohncenaGOAT , you misinterpreted my point, which was that an individual can do everything in his power to reduce their carbon footprint, without changing anything. The only way an individual can cause real change is to inspire a legion of individuals to do the same, as Martin Luther King and his co-activitsts did. But then it isn't really an individual anymore. You could argue that Greta is trying to achieve the same thing, to inspire others to her cause, and she's probably already reasonably successful in that.

But Emperor, don't you see the irony in what you are saying?
You are arguing that the actions of an individual are pointless beyond the hope of inspiring others...
Yet for a nation to act without a consensus of the world is equally pointless.

Oct 1, 2019 1:06:55 GMT KITN said:

The reason more people in America don't use public transport is that public transport in America is godawful. In nearly every other country with access to them, trains move faster, and bus routes and schedules are more convenient. But here, they're fucked, because if they're fucked, then you'll buy a car, even if you live in a city. Or, in shorter words: Fucking capitalism.

Go live in Cuba or Venezuela and see how much you enjoy a great public transport system at the expense of other pointless things... Such as food.
Socialism is an Idealism and all Idealism is flawed and impossible to implement.

You want better public transport, agree to pay more tax.

First of all, Venezuela is not a communist country. You cannot be a communist country when most of the capital is still controlled by private companies. Cuba has a vaccine for lung cancer and has eliminated mother-to-child AIDs. Not only that but considering the fact that they've faced a pretty severe trade embargo by one of the most powerful and wide-reaching Capitalist powers on the planet, Cuba's had a pretty good standard of living for its citizens.

The idea of capitalism being a net good for humanity is a myth, and a dangerous one at that. It props up a select few at the expense of the many and is antithetical to the very nature of human beings and to ideas like community and the common good. It is a rape palace that is killing the planet and corpse-grinding the working poor into oblivion.

You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Oct 1, 2019 2:17:48 GMT KITN said:

First of all, Venezuela is not a communist country. You cannot be a communist country when most of the capital is still controlled by private companies. Cuba has a vaccine for lung cancer and has eliminated mother-to-child AIDs. Not only that but considering the fact that they've faced a pretty severe trade embargo by one of the most powerful and wide-reaching Capitalist powers on the planet, Cuba's had a pretty good standard of living for its citizens.

The idea of capitalism being a net good for humanity is a myth, and a dangerous one at that. It props up a select few at the expense of the many and is antithetical to the very nature of human beings and to ideas like community and the common good. It is a rape palace that is killing the planet and corpse-grinding the working poor into oblivion.

You have nothing to lose but your chains.

I didn't realize that you were a Communist, I thought you were a Socialist.
You say that Capitalism is, and I quote: "antithetical to the very nature of human beings"
Would you care to comment to how Capitalism is in someway antithetical to Darwinism, which in itself describes the nature of humanity and it's evolution?

In a socially minded democratic capitalist society, the common good is weighed against the need to motivate and stimulate growth.
Australia is more socially minded that the USA, but as a result we struggle to stimulate growth.

The idea that their is an innate nature inside humanity that seeks the fellow good of their fellow man  has NEVER been demonstrated in a percentage of the population high enough to make a socialist society work.

You also fail to grasp that corporations and society are a reflection of the true nature of people, they are not a corrupted parody of it.
I see no way that creating the idealist society will cause the nature of a person to reflect that and more to the point, it has never been effectively displayed in more than a small sample of volunteers.
The Iron curtain, the Berlin wall, KGB, Stazi... Not items required in a utopian society.

Oct 1, 2019 2:17:48 GMT KITN said:

First of all, Venezuela is not a communist country. You cannot be a communist country when most of the capital is still controlled by private companies. Cuba has a vaccine for lung cancer and has eliminated mother-to-child AIDs. Not only that but considering the fact that they've faced a pretty severe trade embargo by one of the most powerful and wide-reaching Capitalist powers on the planet, Cuba's had a pretty good standard of living for its citizens.

The idea of capitalism being a net good for humanity is a myth, and a dangerous one at that. It props up a select few at the expense of the many and is antithetical to the very nature of human beings and to ideas like community and the common good. It is a rape palace that is killing the planet and corpse-grinding the working poor into oblivion.

You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Yeah Communism has done SO much good for the planet.   The Great Purge. The Great Leap Forward, The Killing Fields, The Berlin Wall, etc...etc...  I think you get the point.   There is a reason that Communism has ALWAYS been forced upon people at gun point.

Oct 1, 2019 1:27:16 GMT iNCY said:

Sept 30, 2019 17:49:33 GMT Emperor said:

However, jTjohncenaGOAT , you misinterpreted my point, which was that an individual can do everything in his power to reduce their carbon footprint, without changing anything. The only way an individual can cause real change is to inspire a legion of individuals to do the same, as Martin Luther King and his co-activitsts did. But then it isn't really an individual anymore. You could argue that Greta is trying to achieve the same thing, to inspire others to her cause, and she's probably already reasonably successful in that.

But Emperor, don't you see the irony in what you are saying?
You are arguing that the actions of an individual are pointless beyond the hope of inspiring others...
Yet for a nation to act without a consensus of the world is equally pointless.

Sure, I see your point, but I was never advocating for only one nation or one corporation to act. Clearly a global effort is required.