Page 1 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

13 Oct 2019, 3:20 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Helm

He was in the same house as me, but a year above me , at public school . He believes in establishing a carbon tax. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not .

One difficulty with carbon taxation is that the fossil fuel corporations just 'up' their prices and continue doing business as usual, which currently includes lobbying against and dodging taxation given that free market capitalists have been somewhat more into corporate greed than actually recognizing species wide ecological necessity. Another difficulty presently with the free market capitalist system ~ is that it involves less regulation in the pursuit of profit rather than appropriate regulation for sociological and ecological prosperity.

If they up their prices, then people will buy less of their product and carbon emissions will be reduced.

Not quite in that the higher prices can also or instead be offset internally within the corporations themselves ~ such as not increasing research and development (so just looking busy on the going green front as is the current trend) and (busily on the particulate pollution front) maintaining guaranteed operations of profit involving drilling for oil and mining for other mineral resources and all that.

Be sure though that I am not arguing against carbon taxation ~ only addressing one area of difficulty involving lackadaisical regulation so that with appropriate regulation and effective taxation; people can be safe workers and informed customers living co-efficiently with nature.


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,194
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

13 Oct 2019, 3:43 pm

A few things really need to be expedited:

a) Quantity of EV's on the road and available at reasonable prices.

b) Number of non-meat sandwich items at fast food places like McDonalds, Wendy's, etc., have at least one front and center in the selection list so people at least feel like something losely vegetarian, even if not the healthiest thing in the world, is a choice they can make.

To b) I've heard that this actually is a thing out in west coast states like California but it just stuns me, in 2019, that we could be this far behind the curve everywhere else with all the talk of imminent environmental disaster or talk of blowing past permanent tipping points within 12 years. You'd almost think it's a sign of one's place in the social hierarchy to mock or deny the situation or a sign of weakness to acknowledge them.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Irimias
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 46

13 Oct 2019, 4:19 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I understand your concern. I do think some (but of course by no means all) criticism of XR comes from people who don't want to do anything about climate change. However, most governments are committed to tackling climate change, including the UK government who are arguably the most ambitious in the world (other countries are decarbonising faster, but are generally set up better to do so).

Personally I'm quite committed to the truth, so when I see someone lying or making a mistake then I tend to correct them, even when they agree with me. It's not necessarily a useful habit and I'm not even sure it is virtuous.


In my estimation very few supporters of taking action on climate change would see the inconvenience of XR outweighing the need to take more urgent steps. It isnt disrupting the movement. That is just being used as an excuse to clip the wings from the movement. Again i ask people all the time what kind of protesting is effective while being permissable? What protest movements would they have supported throughout history?

This is the kind of rhetoric coming from prominent journalists and politicians.

Quote:
In a double-page spread in the Mail on Sunday, Douglas Murray, launched a blistering attack on climate protesters and soft policing tactics. He writes: “Their refusal to acknowledge any view but their own deranged belief and their defiance of democratic norms is authoritarian, even fascistic … Despite the childish certainty these extremists promote, the science of climate change is deeply contested. Most scientists agree there are variations going on but they disagree on exactly what causes it.”
So that’s where the climate deniers are now, ignoring Nasa’s survey showing 97% of global climate scientists agree that the five warmest years have been the past five, “extremely likely due to human activities”.

With bourgeois baby-boomers bopping goofily to techno music in Trafalgar Square, hemp-trousered “crusties” obstructing bridges as they sit cross-legged on yoga mats, and even the likes of the Prime Minister’s father on board, Extinction Rebellion (XR) has sometimes resembled a wellness festival for ageing hippies meets a sit-in by the National Trust. But dig a little deeper and it is clear where Extinction Rebellion’s roots lie – in the anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation movement which a few years ago was lobbing bricks through the windows of McDonald’s.

Boris Johnson, who has rarely mentioned the ecological crisis since coming to office, dismissed the people taking part in the protests as “uncooperative crusties”who should stop blocking the streets with their “heaving hemp-smelling bivouacs”. [If you need reminding about why the climate crisis is a major global problem, the causes of it and the consequences, have a look at this article which explains it all in just 10 charts.
On the divergence in opinion of when the uk should reach zero emissions...


On the likelihood of the uk "not" reaching its targets...

Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science- ... t-47121399

https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-clim ... d-targets/

Lord Deben, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change this week said “the fact is that we’re off track to meet our own emissions targets in the 2020s and 2030s”, based on the carbon budgets for that period. The Committee on Climate Change is an independent body which advises the government on emissions targets, and was formed under the Climate Change Act 2008.



On the integrity of the Uks figures..

Quote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -emissions

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -emergency

Hitting net zero carbon emissions by 2025 would require a complete overhaul of the way we are organised as a society in just six years – fundamentally changing everything from transport to domestic and industrial energy systems, food production to overall levels of consumption. The UK government has set a target of net zero by 2050. Labour backed a much more ambitious target of 2030 at its recent party conference.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

13 Oct 2019, 7:07 pm

Irimias wrote:
Pepe wrote:

You are new here and aren't privy to the nuances of the subject matter discussed previously.

If you watched the video you would have seen the demolishing of one of their alarmist/catastrophist claims:
"Billions of people will die in the near future due to man-made climate change."
This is hysterical nonsense that even the scientists in agreement with the man-made climate change model/theory dispute.
And this sort of irrational and irresponsible rhetoric has completely destroyed their credibility, ergo, damage to their general cause.

These are the people who dance half-naked in the street to make a point.
There doesn't seem to be a rational reason for their mode of behaviour other than:" Look at me, look at me."
They have been described as anarchists rather than eco-warriors.

But I have an open mind and will listen to a better argument.
Please supply one if you have one. :wink:


What action should the public be taking that a) you consider appropruate and b) will ensure governments respond and wake up to the problem? The climate change protest movement is hardly new. I even went on a large peaceful protest myself 13 years ago.


Hi mate,
Read my signature:
Quote:
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin...

I.E. I am not interested in being part of reform.

Rather, I am: "The Oracle of Truth".
I focus on exposing/sharing "the Truth".
It is a full-time job.
Saving the world is SEP (Someone Else's Problem). :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

13 Oct 2019, 7:29 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Explain to me what you mean by: "moral incoherence".
And how does this affect the man-made climate change narrative/discussion.?

Is the video allowed to answer that or no?


<chuckle>
That is the sort of answer which doesn't surprise me, simply based on our history.
Does: "slippery as an eel",
Mean anything to you?

Deepthought 7 gave a good reply but we have yet to comfirm if this is what you were referring to:
Quote:
Moral incoherence in the given context involved climate change advocates being hypocritical. Such as the call to use more plant based foods rather than eating meat at a fast food chain ~ which one of the teenagers said he was not prepared to give up doing for the environment, as therefore sets a poor motivational example and validates for some a dismissive rhetorical attitude of why bother or take it seriously if he won't.


I think we should upgrade "Deepthought 7" to "Deepthought 8".
What do ya say? :mrgreen:

BTW, why do you have problems with simple questions intending to clarify?
I get the impression you are saying: Work it out yourself, you lazy bastard. 8O

You are missing the point.
I am showing respect by engaging with your post and simply want to confirm we are on the same page.

So we are on the same wavelength, could you explain why you responded the way you did to my request?
Deepthought 8, I mean 7, presumably had no problem with my inquiry. :scratch:



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,194
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

13 Oct 2019, 7:50 pm

Pepe wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Explain to me what you mean by: "moral incoherence".
And how does this affect the man-made climate change narrative/discussion.?

Is the video allowed to answer that or no?


<chuckle>
That is the sort of answer which doesn't surprise me, simply based on our history.
Does: "slippery as an eel",
Mean anything to you?

Ah, you were assuming it would be a video you'd disagree with! I have no clue TBH whether that's true, I'm not sure you do either.

We might also have different strategies about videos though. If someone posts a video in my thread and I can't be arsed to watch it I just don't comment on it because if it doesn't catch my interest enough then the post didn't either.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

13 Oct 2019, 7:53 pm

Deepthought 7 wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Helm

He was in the same house as me, but a year above me , at public school . He believes in establishing a carbon tax. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not .

One difficulty with carbon taxation is that the fossil fuel corporations just 'up' their prices and continue doing business as usual, which currently includes lobbying against and dodging taxation given that free market capitalists have been somewhat more into corporate greed than actually recognizing species wide ecological necessity. Another difficulty presently with the free market capitalist system ~ is that it involves less regulation in the pursuit of profit rather than appropriate regulation for sociological and ecological prosperity.


Perhaps the discussion of carbon taxes might be more appropriate in a new thread by that name. :wink:
While the "investigation" has validity, perhaps it is better served elsewhere.
This thread is dedicated primarily to this tread's topic, namely: Extinction Rebellion,
And specifically to the video presented.

If there is an Extinction Rebellion connection with Carbon Taxes, etc, please refer to that.

Just a gentle reminder that we auties tend to go on a tangent.
I am one of the biggest offenders, I know. <EEP!>

This tangentiality has become a bigger problem now that the mods have recently put the emphasis on related topics being in one thread.

We could always go back to the old method where I start a new thread on the same topic,
Anyone?
Anyone at all? :mrgreen:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

13 Oct 2019, 8:07 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Pepe wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Explain to me what you mean by: "moral incoherence".
And how does this affect the man-made climate change narrative/discussion.?

Is the video allowed to answer that or no?


<chuckle>
That is the sort of answer which doesn't surprise me, simply based on our history.
Does: "slippery as an eel",
Mean anything to you?

Ah, you were assuming it would be a video you'd disagree with! I have no clue TBH whether that's true, I'm not sure you do either.

We might also have different strategies about videos though. If someone posts a video in my thread and I can't be arsed to watch it I just don't comment on it because if it doesn't catch my interest enough then the post didn't either.


The first time (well the only time) I watched the video in its entirety I had a problem with its presentation.
I found it a little confusing and it grated on me somewhat.
I wanted clarity from you since it was assumed you would have presented something which you understood.

Apart from having limited time, there is also the problem of having limited psychological energy, something I suspect most on the spectrum are familiar with.
In addition, you and I have very different philosophies, interests and styles of thought.

On my side, I find your manner quite foreign to me, making it harder to remain on the same page, hence the need to ask for clarification.
I hope we are now in a better position to understand each other, err, better. :wink:

BTW, Is it just my impression or are you getting snarky with me? <chuckle>



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,194
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

13 Oct 2019, 8:20 pm

Pepe wrote:
The first time (well the only time) I watched the video in its entirety I had a problem with its presentation.
I found it a little confusing and it grated on me somewhat.
I wanted clarity from you since it was assumed you would have presented something which you understood.

Apart from having limited time, there is also the problem of having limited psychological energy, something I suspect most on the spectrum are familiar with.
In addition, you and I have very different philosophies, interests and styles of thought.

On my side, I find your manner quite foreign to me, making it harder to remain on the same page, hence the need to ask for clarification.

So my grasp of the video - activists have a way of doing all kinds of damage to their causes and making even sane things look absurd. The one thing I will admit, something of an argument against my initial agreement with the video, it's true that I can't project myself well into the shoes of someone with a 90 IQ to figure out what they'd react to positively vs. what would go straight over their heads and make em chase after something shiny, so maybe the Greta Thunberg approach is just targeted for a different demographic.

Where we're at with this - AFAICT if we don't behave in some sane manner to this situation we're f'd. When I say that the insane reaction could go one of two ways - the first being complacency or saying 'Pff... lol... sucks to be you - I won't be around for that', the other abreaction is to say 'Stop capitalism now!' in which case we damage the world economy deeply, cause the developing world to slide back into poverty, and going back to subsistence living means they need to do whatever they need to do to stay alive and the environment will just have to cope.

I tend to think the wild and crazy yahoos on both side make sane progress difficult on what's really an existential issue. John Gray and James Lovelock share a rather grim prediction on this, that global warming is the planet's solution to its current plague of disseminated primatemaia. Having more than half of the world population die off from environmental degradation and climate change is just the half, the other half is such awful war for the remaining resources that it would make the first half of the 20th century across Europe and Asia look pleasant. From that standpoint I'll take a pass on John and James's cool detachment.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

13 Oct 2019, 11:22 pm

Quote:
The REAL Reason Extinction Rebellion Protests

The past seven days have been International Rebellion Week, and Extinction Rebellion activists have been protesting all week long. But who are these people really? And why do they actually protest?



https://youtu.be/x2xDXc1HXag



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,469
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

13 Oct 2019, 11:32 pm

I very much support extinction rebellion...hell yeah, keep demonstrating....Go extinction rebellion! keep it up.


_________________
We won't go back.


Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

14 Oct 2019, 2:45 pm

Pepe wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Explain to me what you mean by: "moral incoherence".
And how does this affect the man-made climate change narrative/discussion.?

Is the video allowed to answer that or no?


<chuckle>
That is the sort of answer which doesn't surprise me, simply based on our history.
Does: "slippery as an eel",
Mean anything to you?

Deepthought 7 gave a good reply but we have yet to comfirm if this is what you were referring to:
Quote:
Moral incoherence in the given context involved climate change advocates being hypocritical. Such as the call to use more plant based foods rather than eating meat at a fast food chain ~ which one of the teenagers said he was not prepared to give up doing for the environment, as therefore sets a poor motivational example and validates for some a dismissive rhetorical attitude of why bother or take it seriously if he won't.


I think we should upgrade "Deepthought 7" to "Deepthought 8".
What do ya say? :mrgreen:

BTW, why do you have problems with simple questions intending to clarify?
I get the impression you are saying: Work it out yourself, you lazy bastard. 8O

You are missing the point.
I am showing respect by engaging with your post and simply want to confirm we are on the same page.

So we are on the same wavelength, could you explain why you responded the way you did to my request?
Deepthought 8, I mean 7, presumably had no problem with my inquiry. :scratch:

I assumed either that you were unable to or did not want to watch the video, or else that you were using the question to emphasize a point or the point of the thread to demote the importance of the Extinction Rebellion message, as like Andrew Niel did in the first instance by using the fact to fiction ploy that quite likely 'billions of people are going to die in quite short order' as which was then diminished to quite unlikely 'our children are going to die in the next ten to twenty years' ~ when the information was actually that billions of people (most of the human species) will be dead in the evolutionary 'short order' of one to two hundred years ~ due to disease, pollution mostly and adverse environmental conditions. This was scientifically publicized in one instance among others before and after to similar extents by a Professor Frank Fenner in 2015 as follows:

Quote:
Humans Will Be Extinct In 100 Years Says eminent scientist

(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.

Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species. United Nations official figures from last year estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year.

Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts.

Fenner said that climate change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”

Easter Island is famous for its massive stone statues. Polynesian people settled there, in what was then a pristine tropical island, around the middle of the first millennium AD. The population grew slowly at first and then exploded. As the population grew the forests were wiped out and all the tree animals became extinct, both with devastating consequences. After about 1600 the civilization began to collapse, and had virtually disappeared by the mid-19th century. Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond said the parallels between what happened on Easter Island and what is occurring today on the planet as a whole are “chillingly obvious.”

While many scientists are also pessimistic, others are more optimistic. Among the latter is a colleague of Professor Fenner, retired professor Stephen Boyden, who said he still hopes awareness of the problems will rise and the required revolutionary changes will be made to achieve ecological sustainability. “While there's a glimmer of hope, it's worth working to solve the problem. We have the scientific knowledge to do it but we don't have the political will,” Boyden said.

Fenner, 95, is the author or co-author of 22 books and 290 scientific papers and book chapters. His announcement in 1980 to the World Health Assembly that smallpox had been eradicated is still seen as one of the World Health Organisation’s greatest achievements. He has also been heavily involved in controlling Australia’s feral rabbit population with the myxomatosis virus.

Professor Fenner has had a lifetime interest in the environment, and from 1973 to 1979 was Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at ANU. He is currently a visiting fellow at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the university, and is a patron of Sustainable Population Australia. He has won numerous awards including the ANZAC Peace Prize, the WHO Medal, and the Albert Einstein World Award of Science. He was awarded an MBE for his work on control of malaria in New Guinea during the Second World War, in which Fenner served in the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps.

https://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html

And along with this came a few years later this:

Quote:
THE EXTINCTION CRISIS

It's frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

[1] 1. Chivian, E. and A. Bernstein (eds.) 2008. Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Oxford University Press, New York.

[2] 2. Ibid. and Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham, B. F. N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, Lee Hannah, L. Hughes, Brian Huntley, A. S. van Jaarsveld, G. F. Midgley, L. Miles, M. A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O. L. Phillips, and S. E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

And hence the theatrical Red Brigades performing silently as skinned and bleeding bodies to demonstrate all of the above mentioned extinction crisis very well indeed visually like this:


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,575
Location: Calne,England

14 Oct 2019, 5:20 pm

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=381406 Carbon tax thread.



Irimias
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 46

15 Oct 2019, 1:23 am

Pepe wrote:

Hi mate,
Read my signature:
Quote:
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin...

I.E. I am not interested in being part of reform.

Rather, I am: "The Oracle of Truth".
I focus on exposing/sharing "the Truth".
It is a full-time job.
Saving the world is SEP (Someone Else's Problem). :wink:


I see. You want to expose the truth but won't respond to my questions.



Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

15 Oct 2019, 10:39 am

Irimias wrote:
Pepe wrote:

Hi mate,
Read my signature:
Quote:
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin...

I.E. I am not interested in being part of reform.

Rather, I am: "The Oracle of Truth".
I focus on exposing/sharing "the Truth".
It is a full-time job.
Saving the world is SEP (Someone Else's Problem). :wink:


I see. You want to expose the truth but won't respond to my questions.

I think it may just be a matter of time perhaps given that which Pepe stated in his 13 Oct 2019 post as follows:

Pepe wrote:
Apart from having limited time, there is also the problem of having limited psychological energy, something I suspect most on the spectrum are familiar with.


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

15 Oct 2019, 8:59 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I very much support extinction rebellion...hell yeah, keep demonstrating....Go extinction rebellion! keep it up.


I hope they become extinct rooly soon. :mrgreen:


https://youtu.be/NUHk2RSMCS8