Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    362
Status
Not open for further replies.

Corpuscles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
8,843
1,827
Lunatic Park
AFL Club
Sydney

So do I ! It absolutely highlights the difference and the stupidity of the alarmist reaction.

1. There was a clear quantified unmistakeable undisputed immediate global threat
2. Australia could make a direct worthy impact no matter how small
3. All allies were willing to engage and committed to assist (USA eventually)
4. Personal sacrifice was direct and clear.

...etc etc

Highlights the propaganda and BS! of the alarmists
 

its free real estate

it's free real estate
Jul 30, 2018
11,782
15,176
AFL Club
Fremantle
This might help a few people here who are showing signs of being seriously upset.

Is it not that she is a teenager with Aspergers that makes her more egregious? She becomes a vessel for adults who can’t adequately explain their agendas. What is next, children with Down’s Syndrome encouraging people to go vegan?
 
Is it not that she is a teenager with Aspergers that makes her more egregious? She becomes a vessel for adults who can’t adequately explain their agendas. What is next, children with Down’s Syndrome encouraging people to go vegan?
Grassroots movements often rely on a figurehead.
For kids concerned about the climate, she has become that figurehead. At the same time, the anti-action people attack her personally for the reasons stated in the attached article.
 
Nov 24, 2007
25,849
54,730
DTC Frat House
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Lambda Variant
3. All allies were willing to engage and committed to assist (USA eventually)

Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.
(Winston Churchill, supposedly)
 

its free real estate

it's free real estate
Jul 30, 2018
11,782
15,176
AFL Club
Fremantle
Grassroots movements often rely on a figurehead.
For kids concerned about the climate, she has become that figurehead. At the same time, the anti-action people attack her personally for the reasons stated in the attached article.
The girl thinks she can see carbon dioxide. She is clearly not all there. If that’s what the movement rallies around there is something wrong with the movement.
 
The girl thinks she can see carbon dioxide. She is clearly not all there. If that’s what the movement rallies around there is something wrong with the movement.
It's telling that her opponents rarely talk about the message, rather attack her personally. Just a glance at the last few pages tells a tale.
 

its free real estate

it's free real estate
Jul 30, 2018
11,782
15,176
AFL Club
Fremantle
It's telling that her opponents rarely talk about the message, rather attack her personally. Just a glance at the last few pages tells a tale.
What is her message? That world leaders aren’t doing enough on climate change?

Easy to say from the cheap seats, but the carbon intensive industries are locked in to the global economy. Politics alone can not overcome this. World leaders are powerless in the face of it.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
30k Posts 10k Posts
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,723
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
It's telling that her opponents rarely talk about the message, rather attack her personally. Just a glance at the last few pages tells a tale.

Her message is exactly the same as the UN's - that we are in a "climate emergency", but developing nations should be exempt from immediate action so they can improve their standard of living.

Sorry, Greta is a puppet for global socialism.
 
It's telling that her opponents rarely talk about the message, rather attack her personally. Just a glance at the last few pages tells a tale.
And also how hard they go at her. Like, she threatens them on a basic, primal level.
 
What is her message? That world leaders aren’t doing enough on climate change?

Easy to say from the cheap seats, but the carbon intensive industries are locked in to the global economy. Politics alone can not overcome this. World leaders are powerless in the face of it.
We'll have to agree to disagree completely on this point. World leaders can absolutely do more.
If they are 'powerless', they aren't world leaders.
 

Corpuscles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
8,843
1,827
Lunatic Park
AFL Club
Sydney
It's telling that her opponents rarely talk about the message, rather attack her personally. Just a glance at the last few pages tells a tale.

You seem to be a supporter?

Lets talk about her message

Are you planning to become a vegan? and insist the entire world does also?
Refuse to fly in any aircraft in future?
All ought sail across seas instead.
Are converting to completely electric vehicle and or transport options? Despite unavailable charging stations.
Giving up work to become an activist?
You believe Government's should do "something" more!? ( a higher priority than economic welfare of citizens)
You think school aged children are best equipped to deal with and guide on the issue?

Thought not!

PS Thanks for the info that indeed her parents did seek medical assistance. my BAD!
Acknowledged and read.
 
You seem to be a supporter?

Lets talk about her message

Are you planning to become a vegan? and insist the entire world does also?
Refuse to fly in any aircraft in future?
All ought sail across seas instead.
Are converting to completely electric vehicle and or transport options? Despite unavailable charging stations.
Giving up work to become an activist?
You believe Government's should do "something" more!? ( a higher priority than economic welfare of citizens)
You think school aged children are best equipped to deal with and guide on the issue?

Thought not!

PS Thanks for the info that indeed her parents did seek medical assistance. my BAD!
Acknowledged and read.
I'm an incrementalist not an absolutist, and that list above is a ridiculous framing of the issue.

This comment is an interesting one though: "a higher priority than economic welfare of citizens".
Why do you think taking action of climate change has to come at an economic cost?

For mine there is a lot we could do that would be beneficial to both the environment and the bottom line (e.g. cutting fossil fuel subsidies, prioritising the use of water resources for food production over water-intensive industries and mining, isng low-carbon technology to process our raw minerals in Australia than bulk transporting ore, etc).

We have little economic security right now on the back of our two biggest exports being bulk unprocessed material exports. We're taking a huge economic risk by being so stuck in the past.
 
We’ve had 30 years of politics attempting to solve the problem. They’ve changed nothing. The solution isn’t more politics.
Again I disagree. We've had 30 years of politics avoiding and obfuscating the issue, save for a minority.
That's not what you said though. You said world leaders were powerless. On that point, I disagree.
 

Corpuscles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
8,843
1,827
Lunatic Park
AFL Club
Sydney
QUOTE="Mofra, post: 64111064, member: 21665"


I'm an incrementalist not an absolutist, and that list above is a ridiculous framing of the issue.

I agree it is ridiculous. However you were not addressing "the issue" but rather specifically Greta's message.
It is a fair representation of such !. I urge you to watch the vid you posted again (or thoroughly) when time permits.
She was asked specific questions.


This comment is an interesting one though: "a higher priority than economic welfare of citizens".
Why do you think taking action of climate change has to come at an economic cost?

All change involves a cost or at least an investment. Radical ratbag demands (eg eliminate coal export, convert to entirely renewable, etc) involve cost and revenue loss and displaced workers, the demands mean large workforces need to be retrained and new industries developed.
Yes, incrementally it can /might be done but only so long as the return on investment restores incrementally a equal or positive outcome and replaces export revenue.



For mine there is a lot we could do that would be beneficial to both the environment and the bottom line (e.g. cutting fossil fuel subsidies, prioritising the use of water resources for food production over water-intensive industries and mining, isng low-carbon technology to process our raw minerals in Australia than bulk transporting ore, etc).

This all requires investment which involves to Australia committing to long term increased debt.
They are worthy good ideas. However, when the ore is processed in our factories it has to be competitive on the world stage (China way ahead of the world now and cheap oppressed workforce),Exactly how do we ship / distribute ALL the final product overseas? On a sailing boat or electric solar panelled cargo vessel?


We have little economic security right now on the back of our two biggest exports being bulk unprocessed material exports. We're taking a huge economic risk by being so stuck in the past.

Welcome to Australia! It was mainly riding on the sheep's back, then a gold rush, then wheat and wool, then mining and tourism. It all takes investment funds.

Yes investment funds ought be gathered for such investment in developing and marketing new technology.
The best place to start, is all those fanatics willing to sacrifice their lifestyle to contribute because they want to address a vague, unclear at present, impending Climate change "emergency" which none of the global superpowers or emerging ones, are doing much to change the real source of the global problem.
 
May 8, 2007
48,686
71,371
AFL Club
Richmond

Painting of the 1825 Venice floods

20200115_141943.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back