# Indoctrination of children



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

This is a complicated one. So I gave it the most outrageous title I could think of. 

Watch this:


Its in german, but it doesnt matter. You'll get whats happening. 

What you are witnessing is public indoctrination of children (give them a feeling of being part of masses, provide them catchy slogans, make them chant, make them jump, make them amplify voices without thinking, give them all the same thought patterns, tell them that thats "good"..).

Basically with "you cant have a pony for your birthday" type story patterns ("But why....?").

But for all the right reasons. (Global warming is a thing, a public mass value change is a strategy to pivot away from growth based economies.)

Without telling them the negative side of what they are striving for. (Less social mobility in societies that dont grow for example, letting everyone suffer through recessions for more years, have your daddy loose his job...)

So does the end rectify the means in this case?

For me it does not. For me thats instrumentalizing people that are too young to understand the full argument, for political gains. ('Get into power.')

Am I the only one that cant help but see it this way?


----------



## Enkuler (Mar 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> So does the end rectify the means in this case?
> 
> For me it does not. For me thats instrumentalizing people that are too young to understand the full argument, for political gains. ('Get into power.')
> 
> Am I the only one that cant help but see it this way?


There are two problems here.

*1) Indoctrination of children*

For me the end may justify the means*. You know, when they grow up

they'll become adults capable of thinking and of seeing the negative sides, and they'll go in the right direction (doing what is needed and try to avoid negative pits, weighing pros and cons, etc)

OR they'll become idiots who never change their minds and always act the way they first learnt how to act, and I'd rather have more of these idiots go in the "not perfect direction but not the worst one either" than have these idiots on the other side, saying that global warming is a hoax to fit whoever's agenda
*not always though. Obviously it needs to be for a good cause to begin with lol. But also, I'd say it needs to be a little bit urgent, just like it is with climate change. For stuff that doesn't impact the whole planet, maybe it is better to play honestly and not be attackable on the means employed.

*2) "For political gains" as you put it*

And yeah, that's bad. Because in this case the people who indoctrinate others are not even using the correct arguments and stuff, they just try to convince people to join them, using the most dishonest means of persuasion, and that's not how the convinced people are going to become able to think by themselves. Plus they bring discredit to the legitimate cause.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Mar 16, 2019)

lol how else would the left propagate their stupid ideas?


Enkuler said:


> There are two problems here.
> But also, I'd say it needs to be a little bit urgent, just like it is with climate change.


It's only urgent if you get your science from Late Night Comedy shows.

If you actually try to look for the facts you'll see the reality is very different and there's no scientific evidence of such claims that humans are causing climate change.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Enkuler said:


> OR they'll become idiots who never change their minds and always act the way they first learnt how to act, and I'd rather have more of these idiots go in the "not perfect direction but not the worst one either" than have these idiots on the other side


Lets leave the 'hoax' part out of it for a moment (because it really isn't - most of our scientists agree..) - and look at the potentially likely outcome here.

The next generation ('those children') will think back of those great moments of group camaraderie (feeling of being in a group) and collective political action they had in their youth - and will always have "we need to do something, for something, something, climate" - ankered positively in their minds.

To them its great adventure -

While all I currently see, is some children entertainers telling them to chant and jump. (The manerisms of some people on stage, are really the exact same.)

So what I'm arguing for is - that you dont do that to children (dont give them the Greta rolemodels - unreflected), do it to grown ups, if you must.

Or in more controversial terms. Children will always be angry, that they cant get a pony, and will always be happy - when they can collectively leave school for a day. And they'll love it, if they can make grown ups listen to them even for a hot minute. (Common plot patterns in childrens literature.  )  (As to some extent will adults.) Dont take advantage of the fact, that they willfully arent represented the entire scope of the argument.

Not by Greta. Not by the children entertainers on center stage. Not by the politically motivated more engaged, older subjects of their peers (who later will go into politics).

I look at this, see the design aspect, and get angry. Its as simple as that.


----------



## dAVID_ (Mar 16, 2019)

piratesephiroth said:


> lol how else would the left propagate their stupid ideas?
> 
> It's only urgent if you get your science from Late Night Comedy shows.
> 
> If you actually try to look for the facts you'll see the reality is very different and there's no scientific evidence of such claims that humans are causing climate change.



Cognitive dissonance is one of the fatal flaws of the human mind.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Mar 16, 2019)

Kids nowadays are too politized, back in my days we just enjoyed our childhood.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Kids nowadays are too politized, back in my days we just enjoyed our childhood.


Dang it. I think thats wrong as well... 

But I wouldn't count them as "politicized". They hardly know the argument they are making.  If they knew what they are talking about with a little more depth (because, they had experienced it for themselves f.e., or had an interest in hearing different sides of the argument), Id be all for it.

Example:


It would make me smile.

If they are set to protest on the streets for matters regarding school life or policy - I'm all for it as well.

If they'd protest for a more green, or ecologically just world - without the sense of everyone else telling them they cant have their pony, being someone, that JUST hadn't heard, what they heard in their chanting sessions, I'd be all for it.

But if you tell, them - that they should all fight for a higher principal - and learn how to collectively jump a little - I call foul, and claim its indoctrination. 

If you then look up the definition of indoctrination - its literally that. btw. I've covered my flanks on that one.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Mar 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> But I wouldn't count them as "politicized". They hardly know the argument they are making.


Well, the term 'useful idiots' exists for a reason. Virtue signaling may be usable too but those who preach what they say know what it is, though they don't practice it.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

People cant even jump the fact, that they will happily protest for "something, somtheing climate" on fridays, and then post for instagram pics of their bali vacations on mondays. (While SUVs are the fastest growing segment in car production.)

And then all kinds of fun solutions get proposed, like give everyone a free contingent of six flights a year, and the ones who exceed that would have to buy rights from others - which would really cement in, that this is only about making poor people give up their only theoretical rights entirely, because of economic restrictions.

Then let them talk about them not getting any children, which is a low effort way to actually reach some what they are proposing (and the only one I believe could be potentially working if you sell it to people correctly (one child policy)), but then it conflicts with all the images of children in the media, that pitch you do "something, for something, something climate" in our future. And with many of societys expectations on self preservation.

While people of our generation still havent recognized, that politically their parents are still in the rule, because of the population curve, and exploit them to get gains, the next generation is never expected to get, when they are getting old, and contrast that with the notion, that we already suffered through an economic downturn, and 0% effective growth for 20 years - and you really start questioning, what the heck is going on here.

But the growth potential! Is limited. The same as the entire design of that economy.

Its really just an outlet for people to feel better about themselves, while not being able to do much.

I don't know if we want to introduce children to that too quickly.

(And its freaking grandparents compatible, because they get sentimental about their grandchildren as well. But if its supposed to voluntarily channel their financial assets, its failing as well.)

Hm...  Damn, analytical rational mind. Wish I could turn it off some times.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 16, 2019)

You think people just show up at these types of protests/events without knowing what they're about first?  Younger generations are going to be dealing with the fallout of climate change far more than we've had to so far.  You don't have the right to tell them what they should and should not be concerned about, and if you're a climate change denier, even less so.



piratesephiroth said:


> If you actually try to look for the facts you'll see the reality is very different and there's no scientific evidence of such claims that humans are causing climate change.



"If you actually try to look for the facts..."

>Posts random Youtube video from some nobody

If you were actually trying to look for the facts, you'd be reading scientific research papers.  Not typing in "youtube.com" and then turning off your brain.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Younger generations are going to be dealing with the fallout of climate change far more than we've had to so far.


And we are deling with the fallout of the past generation for the past 10 years so far, are the ones who actually get it rubbed in what it means to sustain a society on 0% growth (while our children will have more again, supposedly).

And should take action based on something no one can sufficiently model, more so than we already do, because of shame narratives and doomsday merchants?

Here is the actually feelable impact on western societies in your childrens lifetimes. Zilt. Almost zero. Because there is no Karma, we actually live in the zones, that projection wise, will have to deal with "a mildly warmer climate". Especially in europe.

Maybe you loose the ability to go skiing in the winter. We are not sure yet.

There are obvious problems with sustainable food production, migration, natural disasters and potential "domino effects" (hm... have been sold on that already once in a lifetime), that have to be mitigated in your childs lifetime, but what do the children on the streets help, when they really have no idea about any of that - and it will not matter at all, when we have revolutions in the street instead.

Now - I personally see this a way to test peoples willingness to suffer even more, because you sell them "the future of your children should be better" one more time.

But this time, without economic development.

And thats a freaking hard sell - when all that the children out there are saying is - that they want to have something, that despite our best efforts, might not be realizable.

You cant have a pony, because you made daddy lose his job.

That part they didn't get? Or wasn't it part of the collective chanting sessions?

Could you at least not resort to mass psychology when you do your indoctrination? Would that be possible?

When I see "sudden mass movements" like that forming, I'm asking myself qui bono, and the answer to that is not pretty.

I also listen to the political statements of our current politicians, and I think, that they are actually reasonable in that regard. They are all but dismissing the political activism entirely. They are playing the real game. Not the "I wish I had a pony" version of it. If you want a stronger pivot into that direction, then vote. And vote with the notion, that in china or america the green party will NEVER be an actual thing in the next 20 years. So vote for destroying your economy faster, than they do. Very lovely.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> And we are deling with the fallout of the past generation for the past 10 years so far, are the ones who actually get it rubbed in what it means to sustain a society on 0% growth (while our children will have more again, supposedly).
> 
> And should take action based on something no one can sufficiently model, more so than we already do, because of shame narratives and doomsday merchants?
> 
> ...


I have no idea what you're talking about.  Your primary concern seems to be economics, but we've already hit a point where renewable energy is cheaper per kWH than fossil fuels.  Green energy provides jobs and achieving energy independence would also be massively beneficial in multiple ways.

This isn't just a future problem, either.  Obviously you don't live in the US, but our natural disasters last year were numerous and horrific.  Every year now it seems half the country is on fire while the other half is dealing with hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass flooding.  You say you worry about the economics, but continuing to be reactionary instead of proactive would end up costing us trillions extra in the long run.

I don't really feel the need to re-hash the debate on whether climate change is real or not, the important players all believe its real already.  The Pentagon lists climate change as one of the top threats to the US at large, and 99% of the scientific community agrees.  Only one political party on Earth refuses to acknowledge that the issue isn't a political one, and they're the party of anti-intellectualism.


----------



## dAVID_ (Mar 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.  Your primary concern seems to be economics, but we've already hit a point where renewable energy is cheaper per kWH than fossil fuels.  Green energy provides jobs and achieving energy independence would also be massively beneficial in multiple ways.
> 
> This isn't just a future problem, either.  Obviously you don't live in the US, but our natural disasters last year were numerous and horrific.  Every year now it seems half the country is on fire while the other half is dealing with hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass flooding.  You say you worry about the economics, but continuing to be reactionary instead of proactive would end up costing us trillions extra in the long run.
> 
> I don't really feel the need to re-hash the debate on whether climate change is real or not, the important players all believe its real already.  The Pentagon lists climate change as one of the top threats to the US at large, and 99% of the scientific community agrees.  Only one political party on Earth refuses to acknowledge that the issue isn't a political one, and they're the party of anti-intellectualism.


Climate change is not a debate.
Humans having a significant influence on climate change is a known fact.


----------



## catlover007 (Mar 16, 2019)

As someone who's classmates actually went to the demonstration from the first video, I might give some insight. There's a lot of discussion about it going on in Germany. Especially conservative politicians criticise them for being hypocritical (always buying new clothes and smartphone, wanting to travel by plane, …) and of course there's the far right which continues to deny climate change. But there are also parents writing apolgies for their children and teachers preparing for the demonstrations in class. Some people including a friend of mine see this just as a excuse to not go to school for people who attend these protests.

My personal stance on this is that, even if people take this as an excuse, they'll continue to have an excuse until the politics start to move. It's simply stupid how the (German) political landscape is unable to cope with this, besides attacking protest on a formal level.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about. Your primary concern seems to be economics, but we've already hit a point where renewable energy is cheaper per kWH than fossil fuels. Green energy provides jobs and achieving energy independence would also be massively beneficial in multiple ways.


Entirely wrong. You cant put solar everywhere, you cant turn on solar at any point you want, you cant store energy efficiently enough already - and for the entire next 50 years, dependency on natural gas in europe will rise and not sink.

If everything would be solvable economically - you wouldnt need children on the streets.

There are "green investment" innitiatives, that try to bundle funds to get research up in the west again, their return on investment is pittiful - they would be all but faltering, if they hadn't ideological drivers behind them. And they dont have a huge base, which is why they are investing in marketing efforts currently. (Astroturfing, essentially.)

Apart from solar (plan: solar fields in africa and parts of greece) and nuclear (waste issue, safety issues), renewable isnt cheaper. And it isnt cheeper in general if you factor in transport costs.

Then there is the dependency issue, because thanks to the german government, the entire solar industry had to be sold out to china including all the ongoing development innitiatives, because it wasnt self sustainable as an industry. So import all solar modules from china (cheap labor) to then do what in europe?

That also touches on job perspectives. So every chinese manufacturing plant can produce todays battery technology just as well, as everyone in the west does, and solar cell production will never get big in europe again, where is your potentially great economy in europe coming from?

Geothermal? Wind? Marketing?

You know, the industry that has to consume the 30% job loss in car manufacturing, just from the fact, that electric cars are far easier to produce.

While we don't look at a much more competitive market situation, because others can produce the less complicated good just as well.

Thats your main industry in large parts of europe (with parts manufacturing, those are several countries).

So what do you see, that I dont?


catlover007 said:


> My personal stance on this is that, even if people take this as an excuse, they'll continue to have an excuse until the politics start to move. It's simply stupid how the (German) political landscape is unable to cope with this, besides attacking protest on a formal level.


They dont even do that. They simply tell them its not possible in the kindest words political rhetoric can muster. I've watched the interviews with Altmaier. And they do it, because its children. Of course.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> Entirely wrong. You cant put solar everywhere, you cant turn on solar at any point you want, you cant store energy efficiently enough already - and for the entire next 50 years, dependency on natural gas in europe will rise and not sink.


Nonsense.  I've got several military bases near me that already run on 100% solar.  And they converted for exactly the reasons I stated: it makes those bases energy independent, and it's less expensive.  Like, you seriously believe the sun's rays are going to dry up before the supply of fossil fuels does?  Spoilers: they won't.  Fossil fuels will continue to become more expensive as they become harder to find, and it won't be long before we're looking at 3x the price per kWH compared to green energy sources.


----------



## dAVID_ (Mar 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nonsense.  I've got several military bases near me that already run on 100% solar.  And they converted for exactly the reasons I stated: it makes those bases energy independent, and it's less expensive.  Like, you seriously believe the sun's rays are going to dry up before the supply of fossil fuels does?  Spoilers: they won't.  Fossil fuels will continue to become more expensive as they become harder to find, and it won't be long before we're looking at 3x the price per kWH compared to green energy sources.


Which military bases?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 16, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> Which military bases?


The Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs is one of them, I'd have to verify for the others.  They've got a massive solar array and their own solar power plant.  Pretty cool to see when driving in.

More info:

https://us.sunpower.com/commercial-solar/case-studies/us-air-force-academy/



			
				Sunpower said:
			
		

> As a Net Zero Energy base under the Net Zero Energy Installations (NZEI) initiative, the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) needed to aggressively pursue renewable energy to meet its goals. The USAFA's key target is to produce 100% of its electricity needs on the base by 2015. Collaborating with Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), the academy sought a solar partner to develop the largest ground-based solar system possible within their budget. After a rigorous selection process, one solar company stood out with the experience, technology, and financial know-how to build a successful solar project to military standards--SunPower. Working together, SunPower and CSU designed and installed a 6 megawatt solar power system on time and on budget. The solar power system will provide up to 11% of the base's needed electricity, and potentially, it could provide 15% by 2015 as the USAFA continues to reduce its energy demands.



Of course, this is a bit outdated.  They've installed even more since 2015.


----------



## catlover007 (Mar 16, 2019)

What's also never taken into account is that every form of energy production carries a hidden cost. Non renewables would be far more expensive if you take in account these factors. Of course renewable aren't free of them, but people who complain about toxic waste from the production of solar panels or how ugly wind turbines look never saw a coal pit.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nonsense. I've got several military bases near me that already run on 100% solar. And they converted for exactly the reasons I stated: it makes those bases energy independent, and it's less expensive.


Absolutely impossible. Do they have snow in the winter? Do they have clouds forming? Do they have batteries that they can run on for half a month if they have to. Did they produce the solar cells in country?

Where did they get the surface area to put the solar cells on? It isnt there on roofetops alone. What do they do if they experience a technical outage (grid?), they cant be switched on quickly - to support sudden outages, because the sun doesnt care. There is not even one city in the entire world, that even proposes - marketing wise, that it would be able to run even mostly on solar.

Do they have miletary equipment, that has to move further than 100 miles from base? Do they wait for half a day to recharge in case of emergency?

Those are not made up problems - those are real. Read up on it. The issue is not "corruption" here, the issue is peoples expectations of what can be done not meeting with reality.

Why does china have an air polution issue at this point, do you think? They are producing the god darn product, even they arent switching to it at large scale any time soon. (And yet they have NO oil. The have to almost import their entire energy needs.) Instead they drew up new contracts to import russian gas. While russian energy companies are now very quickly moving into the arctic, into territories they can now reach via icebreakers to get more oil. They develop entire regions, that havent been on the map in the past currently.

And we should import that to give them what? Souvenirs?

Not everyones economic model depends on bombing the world to then take free oil. Or destroying the environment through fracking.

The US tries to sell europe on natural fracking gas shipped in with tankers currently. Not solar panels.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Mar 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> we've already hit a point where renewable energy is cheaper per kWH than fossil fuels.



LOL, you really have no idea of what you're talking about.
Please stop regurgitating bs that corrupt politicians and their pet celebrities pull out of their asses.

Renewable energy is NEVER efficient at all. It's extremely expensive and destroys the environment.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

Also here is how power grids work. If you cant keep the voltage stable over the entire grid, the entire grid goes down. Stuff breaks, and it takes weeks to months to get it going again.

Again those are real issues - that you will NEVER address with "keep it in the ground" chants.

Now. Scientific developments are on trajectory to solve the storage issue. To deliver renewable energy from lets say geothermal to cities, you need entire new cross country power infrastructures (plants can be near cities), where you literally loose efficiency over distance, with wind turbines, you have the greens complaining that they kill birds, and the conservatives complaining, that they reduce the value of their houses properties, if people have to look at them.

In winter, your solar energy production gets reduced down to a fifth, in areas where snow is a thing (because "just remove snow" isnt as easily said as done). How do you keep your powergrids working in that context?

Lets say you have a sudden blizzard. Now the entire town is out of electricity as well?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 16, 2019)

But you do understand that they need to demand 100% solar to even just get so much as 30% solar maybe eventually, right?

also, growing up is and has always been just one large episode of indoctrinations, so why is this different?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 17, 2019)

piratesephiroth said:


> Renewable energy is NEVER efficient at all. It's extremely expensive and destroys the environment.


Holy fuck.  This is the dumbest shit I've ever seen typed out on the internet.  Congratulations, that was not a low bar.

Like, just fucking think about what you said for a second.  "_Renewable_ energy destroys the _environment._"  Renewable energy _comes_ from the environment you dip.

Source for solar/wind becoming cheaper than fossil fuels back in *2017*:



			
				Independent said:
			
		

> Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.


https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html



notimp said:


> Absolutely impossible. Do they have snow in the winter?


Colorado has more days of sunshine per year than any other state, Florida included.  Besides, one full day of sunshine stores enough energy to last more than a day without any sunshine.  Our storage capacity for energy could use a bump, but the military probably has better technology than standard consumers in that regard anyway.

On the topic of consumer solar though, it is very doable to make individual houses energy independent.  There is obviously a fair cost up-front, but there are subsidies you can get through varying states and people save a lot of money in the long run by adding solar panels.  Not to mention adding value to their house.


----------



## Captain_N (Mar 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs is one of them, I'd have to verify for the others.  They've got a massive solar array and their own solar power plant.  Pretty cool to see when driving in.
> 
> Of course, this is a bit outdated.  They've installed even more since 2015.



There is one source of power generation that's green and solves the fossil fuel burning problem.  Fusion Reactors. While still experimental, no green energy advocate supports it. If they pumped money into it instead of solar farms maybe it would be ready. I know AoC is not smart enough to know what fusion is...


----------



## Xzi (Mar 17, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> There is one source of power generation that's green and solves the fossil fuel burning problem.  Fusion Reactors. While still experimental, no green energy advocate supports it. If they pumped money into it instead of solar farms maybe it would be ready. I know AoC is not smart enough to know what fusion is...


Are you talking about nuclear energy?  It's mostly safe and I'd be fine with it as a backup during the transition away from carbon-based fuels, but the truth is that we already have the technology and the resources to go completely green.  The resistance to that comes almost entirely from the fossil fuel industry, of course, and they've got more lobbyists in government than anyone else AFAIK.


----------



## Captain_N (Mar 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Are you talking about nuclear energy?  It's mostly safe and I'd be fine with it as a backup during the transition away from carbon-based fuels, but the truth is that we already have the technology and the resources to go completely green.  The resistance to that comes almost entirely from the fossil fuel industry, of course, and they've got more lobbyists in government than anyone else AFAIK.



I was talking about Nuclear fusion reactors, not existing fission reactors.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 17, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> I was talking about Nuclear fusion reactors, not existing fission reactors.


As long as the technology can prove itself both safe and efficient in practice, and not just in theory, I don't see a problem with it.  However, solar and wind electric are both proven technologies already, so there's no reason we shouldn't be expanding the use of those while simultaneously putting research into other carbon neutral options.


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

The issue with nuclear is the disposal of its waste (every method invented basically 'failed' to be safe (Put them in barrels, store them away in former mining shafts in mountain ranges. Barrel rots away after 100 years, and you have glowing mountains...  Also the stuff then might make its way into the ground and water streams (you pick mountains with certain stone/sediment segments that are supposed to prevent that), and... Also strangely enough no other countries want to deal with that waste either..  )).

Germany recently pivoted away from nuclear power (after the Fukushima incident, purely for domestic political reasons). If that was such a great idea, we have to still find out. It probably was. (Most our plants were end of life, and it was about "do we build new ones, or go into a different direction")

Solar has a similar issue, btw. The cells only last for 25 years, and then are electronic waste. Not as hazardous, but disposal is definitely an issue (they arent "green" anymore at that point).


----------



## Xzi (Mar 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Solar has a similar issue, btw. The cells only last for 25 years, and then are electronic waste. Not as hazardous, but disposal is definitely an issue (they arent "green" anymore at that point).


Any form of energy has to be stored, and yes, storage is our biggest hurdle right now.  I think we are close to some breakthroughs in terms of battery technology though, and that would help fix this issue almost entirely.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Mar 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Holy fuck.  This is the dumbest shit I've ever seen typed out on the internet.  Congratulations, that was not a low bar.
> 
> Like, just fucking think about what you said for a second.  "_Renewable_ energy destroys the _environment._"  Renewable energy _comes_ from the environment you dip.
> 
> ...



Nice sources, Einstein, lol.

Good luck making and installing those solar panels without consuming a ton of natural resources.
The same goes for dealing with the toxic chemical elements in them when they have to be disposed of and replaced.

Also look at the excuse "there are subsidies you can get"... Of course, the the favourite magical solution of all crooks and the cattle that puts them in charge of the government: just print more money!


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

Not even close. 

You can look at this on the detailed level, or on the larger scale ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...22184f27c35_story.html?utm_term=.59be0b881abe ) and the answer is always no.

Although - in favor of your argument, projections here are hard to make. 

So what you do instead is, you make different projections. Here is one of them -

The most positive technological outcome you can dream of:


> Key developments in our Positive Tech Scenario (2050)
> • Fully electric car fleet, 65% of truck fleet and 10% (including hybrid) of shipping fleet
> • Electricity dominant energy source in real estate and industrials
> • Power demand increases from 20,000 TWh in 2017 to 52,000 TWh
> ...


src: https://www.ing.nl/media/ING_EBZ_technology-the-climate-saviour_tcm162-160146.pdf

Even in a scenario where we replace the entire car fleet with electric vehicles in the next 30 years, and have "electricity" be the dominant energy source for real estate and our main industries, and our power grids can keep up with the increasing power demands, and wind and solar account for 66% of power generation (never ever), and all coal based power generation is eliminated. And 10% of ships use liquified gas instead of crude, and 14% of aviation is using biofuels (whatever that means) - in the projection above, we are handily missing the 2030 climate conference target (imagine a child screaming into your ear "we've got to act NOW!"), and only just about reaching the 2050 climate target - on projection.

Now you've got to know two things. First - if your projections dont hit, it is a common practice to move the goal back a little further - which just raises uncertainty, but makes everyone think, that the goal is still attainable.

Second - the scenario above is never going to happen. It entirely glances over whats called "unintended feedback loops", meaning - if demand for oil sinks, it will get cheaper in price, so demand from other sectors rises, because its still there to be used - so we are talking about HEAVY state regulation at this point. (Carbon Tax, ...) and the projections that wind and solar would be able to generate 66% of increasing energy demands are - lets say "quite positive".

Basically, no one believes, that this is happening.

Which is where the abstinence and doomsday narratives come in, because we have to actually lower demand in society - to reach the goals we already said we want to reach (USA famously said fuck you instead). And thats the "how much less growth are you willing to take, and are you in for shaming your neighbors, into micromanaged - not drinking out of plastic bottles anymore" part that makes me climb up walls.

Because the negative feedback loops here are obvious as can be (*oh I so much reduced plastic use in my daily live - look at me instagram picture with a hemp bag  from me vacation in bali*), and simply make me enraged - when I see them supposedly being championed. You are dealing with a "less is more" narrative, in a capitalistic society. Thats impossible. Before people actually change behavior where it hurts, they will make sure all the "voluntary changes" will be absorbed by the less affluent, who are already impacted most, by lower social mobility through less growth, and by high standards of living costs (also a direct result of low per capita income growth rates in relation to GDP). The entire thing is unjust as fuck. While marketing will tell you its "what you should strife to attain".

In the projections its then phrased as follows:


> A rising middle class will increase demand for industrials products. Growth is lower than economic growth as the economy shifts from industrial products towards services..





> Our Positive Tech Scenario allows for continued economic growth, absorbs increases in the global population and aspirational middle classes and relies less on nuclear energy to meet the climate goals.


First, f*ck services. (= "Millennials will never own a thing in their lives.")

Second, this tells you that an "aspirational middleclass" its whats actually subject of debate at the moment. ("How much can we shame them into consuming even less" by telling them they are doing it for their kids. In a no growth future, at least in Europe.)) because the techno optimist scenario is never going to happen as modeled (I'm sorry, but its not.), and allowing for a growing 'aspirational middle class' isnt set in stone.

So this is what your kids are on the street for. Because they heard something about nature and ponies, and have organized child entertainers making them jump.

I told you Cui bono wasnt fun to look at.


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2019)

Now lets get into the marketing aspect of this.

Currently we see children in the streets in Europe that tell you "dont steal my future" - when the impact of climate change on their lives, is almost zero. (Because they live in europe, the impact on other regions in the world is very much larger in the same timeframe.)

And we see children in the streets, because they are able to move babyboomers (grandparents) investments (they are comparatively affluent, their children are not).

The idea to have this shift in investments lead by state action is impossible (it has to come to fruition too quickly, and states simply don't have the money for high risk projects right now - in Europe we dont even have the investment culture).

Another aspect of why we are seeing children on the forefront of that movement is, because if you do it as usual - and frame beautiful idealistic women, the narrative is entirely out of whack - because you then are telling people basically, to get going with the times, to get attractive mates, by reducing their own standards of living.

Talking about entirely impossible objectives.. 

Just the marketing perspective, where - you know, sex sells... So does selling people brands as life concepts, and value attribution ("He buys Apple, so he is intelligent.").

This part (this posting) is speculative. The rest is not.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 17, 2019)

piratesephiroth said:


> Nice sources, Einstein, lol.


You can't post Youtube videos and then complain that my sources are subpar.  Read again, that information comes from the World Economic Forum.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 17, 2019)

piratesephiroth said:


> LOL, you really have no idea of what you're talking about.
> Please stop regurgitating bs that corrupt politicians and their pet celebrities pull out of their asses.
> 
> Renewable energy is NEVER efficient at all. It's extremely expensive and destroys the environment.



At least it's efficient. Only a small percentage of the energy from fossil fuels is actually converted to electricity. The rest is wasted as heat. And that's why Americans still use gas stoves, it's far more efficient to produce heat with fossil fuels than electricity.


----------



## Captain_N (Mar 18, 2019)

notimp said:


> The issue with nuclear is the disposal of its waste (every method invented basically 'failed' to be safe (Put them in barrels, store them away in former mining shafts in mountain ranges. Barrel rots away after 100 years, and you have glowing mountains...  Also the stuff then might make its way into the ground and water streams (you pick mountains with certain stone/sediment segments that are supposed to prevent that), and... Also strangely enough no other countries want to deal with that waste either..  )).
> 
> Germany recently pivoted away from nuclear power (after the Fukushima incident, purely for domestic political reasons). If that was such a great idea, we have to still find out. It probably was. (Most our plants were end of life, and it was about "do we build new ones, or go into a different direction")
> 
> Solar has a similar issue, btw. The cells only last for 25 years, and then are electronic waste. Not as hazardous, but disposal is definitely an issue (they arent "green" anymore at that point).



There is a type of nuclear reactor that uses the old spent fuel rods. There is enough old fuel right now to power those reactors for 500 years. Nothing has to be done with the old fuel. Its just sitting there wasting.


----------



## notimp (Mar 25, 2019)

Something is very wrong about this, I have to say... 






I have to start naming threads less provocatively..


----------



## Viri (Mar 25, 2019)

The future should have been nuclear power, but the Soviets sure fucked that one up.


----------



## notimp (Mar 26, 2019)

Issue with nucular (Simpsons  ) is storage of the burned fuel rods. You put them in barrels, then put them in salt mines, then barrel rots away in 100 years, then salt mine glows, then its on the stone/sediment layers around it, so stuff doesnt go into the water supply. Also you cant relocate, because then you have "nature is best" protesters all over your train tracks.. 

Also, other countries wont take your waste.

France still runs 75% on nuclear power according to a quick google, so they done did it.  Same issues though.

The question for germany was "our nuclear plants are close to "end of life"" - do we build new ones, or look at something different, and they went with "something different, not sure what.. " in the end. Was economically viable, or else they wouldnt have done it.


----------



## Viri (Mar 26, 2019)

Wait, how did thread go from indoctrination of kids, to renewable energy? lols


----------



## lembi2001 (Mar 26, 2019)

Viri said:


> Wait, how did thread go from indoctrination of kids, to renewable energy? lols



I'm just waiting for the flat earther's to wade in on this. Full lunacy will have then descended on the Temp


----------



## notimp (Mar 26, 2019)

Children were on streets to protest for something, something, climate.

Organizers told children, that what they were for was to now act to reach the 1.5°C warming goal (at least part of the organizers), but the world already decided to maybe act towards 2°C warming as a goal of max global warming (till 2080/2100) instead.

The difference is when you have to get out of fossile energy sources. Over 20 years, or over 10.

Organizers for them children told them they should shout for 10. So children shouted. And jumped. We still go for 20, for BETTER reasons (not to tank economies, has to be based on international coordination, or reverse feedback loops come into existence). So STFU children. Jump a little less. Get that glint out of your eyes. 

Both are the same thing essentially. Its all a question about how fast you switch entire sectors to other energy sources. Thats the entire question.

Children just said everything thats already being done (at least in europe), so peoples started asking, why you on streets, then children screamed "POLITICIANS GOT TO ACT QUICKER", and demanded targets to shift to 1.5°C max, which is entirely delusional. (Climate summits worked for decades to reach the current international agreement).


The more intelligent folks, might acknowledge, that those "popular movements" currently are for the "leeway" of "up to 2°C max" - but then politics shouldnt be their "activist target".

And if they start to try to convince their parents to really take another big hit in economical development, because of +2% more snow chance in 60 years in europe you tell them: "You've been played - now drop your romantic image of what a PR based movement can do." When you grow up, you will now be more likely to vote for the green party, maybe donate to Greenpeace, thats all.

The thing is, in Europe the climate accord is basically a thing ALL parties agree upon, so why we have to have protests in the street for the only issue everyone agrees on, is enraging to me. It feels organized, and it feels like a front.

Their call to action is "do more better, quickly! #youfigureitout" for something, something, climate.

Most of them dont even know what climate models are - simply because they haven't been to university yet. Same with international accords. Trade, or international economic regulations.

What, 60% of non-vertebrates are dying out? Put them next to the ones that already have. I will not live to a day where 'biodiversity' becomes an actionable political term for front and center politics. But now the children are on "page one" of newspapers - for being children.

I freaking hate, what this means for democracy. Maybe have to reread "Crowds and Power" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Canetti) but as far as I remember it wasnt a great read.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

Oh, look at that - I'm in agreement with a George Soros Outlet (Project Syndicate) once more...



> In the Western world, decades of climate-change exaggeration have produced frightened children, febrile headlines, and grand political promises that aren’t being delivered. We need a calmer approach that addresses climate change without scaring us needlessly and that pays heed to the many other challenges facing the planet.


https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ism-scaring-children-by-bjorn-lomborg-2019-03


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> In the Western world, decades of climate-change exaggeration have produced frightened children, febrile headlines, and grand political promises that aren’t being delivered. We need a calmer approach that addresses climate change without scaring us needlessly and that pays heed to the many other challenges facing the planet.


Man we're way past the point of being scared into action, the consequences for the planet have already started to become plainly visible.  Just watch 'Our Planet' on Netflix for examples.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

> We need a calmer approach that addresses climate change without scaring us needlessly and that pays heed to the many other challenges facing the planet.


Also, I dont have netflix.



This for once isnt a diversion attempt, because its basically coming from a thinktank, not a political bureau. It is indicating - between the lines - that If we do, what the children are campaigning for - revolutional tendencies in the west would rise, because you are raising economic pressures at the same time.

Also this time it isnt regional. So if you put in place laws, that make yourself "more climate friendly" than the competitor country, the competitor country just gets more competitive.

This is what all the climate summits were for - to get a framework in which consolidated action was agreed upon, so you dont get those "outcompeting your neighbor" trends. Now the children on the streets scream, that we must outcompete our neighbors better. In essence.

Also - I show you videos of oilspilled regions from the 80+ the next time I'm on this site. Those were regional problems, highly visible - and still, nothing was done, because of economic grounds.

This time, something is done - but the children scream, more better, faster - something. Politicians are the baddies. Which - this time around they arent.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Also, I dont have netflix.


Well, suffice it to say it's a David Attenborough-narrated documentary, and for a kindly old educator, he's not fucking around any more when it comes to climate change.  In one episode there's like three solid minutes of footage where walruses are falling off cliffs to their deaths because of ice melt.  As I said: plainly-visibly consequences.

Teens have every right to be pissed at leadership for failing to act.  They'll be the ones who have to witness the most consequences of climate change throughout their lifetime, and it isn't even consumers who are the biggest driver of it.  It's mega-corporations like Monsanto that simply don't give a fuck.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

I'll watch it then.  Nothing against Attenborough.


----------



## Panzerfaust (Apr 12, 2019)

catlover007 said:


> As someone who's classmates actually went to the demonstration from the first video, I might give some insight. There's a lot of discussion about it going on in Germany. Especially conservative politicians criticise them for being hypocritical (always buying new clothes and smartphone, wanting to travel by plane, …) *and of course there's the far right which continues to deny climate change.* But there are also parents writing apolgies for their children and teachers preparing for the demonstrations in class. Some people including a friend of mine see this just as a excuse to not go to school for people who attend these protests.
> 
> My personal stance on this is that, even if people take this as an excuse, they'll continue to have an excuse until the politics start to move. It's simply stupid how the (German) political landscape is unable to cope with this, besides attacking protest on a formal level.



that's not true at all. nobody denies, that the climate is changing...cause the climate changes since the very begining of the earths existence. what you mean is, that the climate is somehow affected by humans and THAT is debatable. as far as I know, there is zero scientific evidence for that too.

BTW: I talked to a trainee at my workplace and she told me, that her class decided not to participate on fridays (cause skipping school, you know...) but on saturdays...and guess what, out of 25 students, 3 appeared to a demonstration...and a tiny demonstration that was ^^ under 15 ppl from the whole school.

the point is, students do everything to skip school. they are not interested in climate at all.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

Not even thats that debatable. Because you have all but a consensus (about 95% to 5%) in science. And with complex matters that cant be entirely modeled or completely tested in experimental settings (the key is, that you  have to be able to repeat experiments (repeatability)) - that (95% to 5% of climate scientists agree), is the actual best (most conclusive) you can hope for.

So climate change is partly (larger extent) man made. Also - we have to do something about it to mitigate its outcomes (countries for years now, for example manufactured artificial erosion zones around population dense zones in coastal regions (people mostly settle in coastal regions, or along water ways), but we need to do more, we need to moderate a transition, pivot away from fossile fuels, somehow manage an energy transition, without buying solar panels exclusively from the chinese every 25 years, all that has already been debated and argued about, and is coming.

The current US administration isnt on line (fracking is beautiful), but many larger regions within the US are - so the US currently not being part of the Paris climate accord is mitigated. You have pledges on other levels.

What the Fridays for future movement, at least in western europa is advocating though is to speed up the process by 8-10 years with "political ambition". Thats about it. Reasoning. 2% more chance of snow in the winter in western Europe in the lifetime of the children that are out on the streets. (Difference between the 1.5°C and 2°C goals, where it is important to note, that the 1.5°C goal could not be agreed upon internationally. We went with a 2°C max goal.)

Climate change is unfair that way. We in Europe are probably least faced by it, just because of our geographic location.

2°C internationally is still no small feat. It means more famines. drinkingwater shortages, refugee movements, more natural disasters, and - yes, less biodiversity (60% of non vertebrates - gone, as supposed to 30% or 40% (dindt look that number up again, please double check)).


But then - in the western world, you are up against this:


> As lifestyles in the world's developing economies improve drastically, many in the advanced economies are seeing their wellbeing deteriorate – a trend that automation will only exacerbate. Without fundamental change in the framework of public policymaking, it is difficult to imagine a prosperous future in these societies.
> 
> CAMBRIDGE – Despite ever-improving conditions for millions of people around the world – documented by entities like the University of Oxford’s Our World in Data and highlighted by scholars like Steven Pinker – popular discontent is on the rise in many places. The reason is simple: whereas the first trend is being driven by low- and middle-income countries, the second is concentrated in high-income countries.
> 
> Throughout the developed world, conditions for many workers are deteriorating, with no recovery in sight. Income inequality is near historic highs, wealth inequality is even higher, and economic insecurity is widespread.


https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...neoliberal-policy-west-by-diane-coyle-2019-04

Asking people to act quicker, for a non distinct goal ("chance of reaching the 1.5°C target that wasnt agreed upon"), ruining your relative economic competitiveness - towards the detriment of a generation, that already suffered from the financial crises, basically fixed wages over the last 20 years, 0% intrest rates, and the inability to own affordable living space (because that has become subject to speculation) -- because of a religion ("something, something, for something climate") - leads to adverse effects (less CO2 emitted in your country, because of oil saved means oil gets cheaper, means (f.e.) China will buy more of it (f.e.). And raises the propensity of civil unrest.

In essence - economically - the children on the streets are unjust as fuck, because they want to look good, looking concerned about high concept goals on the instagram. This is partly provocation - but also has more than just some truth to it.

If they would act as an activist movement to "better peoples behavior" - first, "shame" and "fear" narratives are a VERY bad idea (they raise contempt and uneasiness), second "shame" shouldnt work as a motivator for the masses, it only leads to double standards, and third THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THEIR PEERS (/themselves), to bring voluntary efforts to the table on top of political action. What they are doing instead - is blaming politics, because for them as a movement that wants to grow, that works better (everyone finds it great fun to be mad at politicians). Again, essentially. Provocatively stated.

Politics is not to blame in this case. They already acted, and got the consensus out of it that was possible.


Now - if Germany f.e. has the money to buy CO2 certificates or be less bright and make penal payments (as to the climate accord see f.e.: https://www.carbontracker.org/eu-carbon-prices-could-double-by-2021-and-quadruple-by-2030/) and still not switch away from coal until 2038 rather than 2030, that actually should be ok. (The money they pay - allows for other initiatives to be financed.)

For the economy it means, that they arent a first mover on green technology, and thats about it. They still can be innovative (in fact they have more time for it, before they have to scale..), but its now become a debate over "how fast they move".

Children say "faster, now". Me says: Isnt going to happen, because its not what we agreed upon in Paris, and to voluntarily ruin your economic prosperity, is only something that currently children can ask for --

but that breaks entirely - if you look, lets say at 25 year olds, instead of 16 year olds. Because what Fridays for Future currently protests for is for them to have a worse economy - now. So Chinas oil payments get less costly, because germans use less oil.


Hence - economically, and from a PR perspective (concerning peoples livelyhoods) Fridays for Future makes NO sense. In fact - reverse sense. But then you factor in that its a religion of people wanting to present virtues on instagram... and you get the trend.

And even then - them trying to address local politicians is about the worst thing they can do. (Then children, have their great rolemodel state they want to live in concept - and everyone else outcompetes them economically.) But at the same time, they dont want to look like the buzzkills, that guildttrip you into not traveling and eating meat anymore, so they need a villain and that has become politics, for no apparent reason.

US (partly) excluded, because they - well - excluded themselves from the climate accord, because of national interest (we want to sell our fracking gas).

Thats a rough cut on the issue.

It basically states, that the children on the streets dont know what they are doing.

It is, or I - am in no way refuting man made climate change. If thats still your tagline, I'm afraid, you ought to update your talking points..  Because that discussion is over and dealt with. We have binding agreements to act on climate change in every country in the world. Apart from the US.

Thats not something you'd need an activist movement in the streets of Europe for. Thats already a political reality.


----------



## cots (Apr 14, 2019)

piratesephiroth said:


> If you actually try to look for the facts you'll see the reality is very different and there's no scientific evidence of such claims that humans are causing climate change.




I do believe that our existence on Earth effects the climate. I don't think that climate change is a hoax. However, I think it's been used to control other people and keep the rich wealthy and certain political players in power. Your video reminds me of those "doomsday" scenarios (supposed documentaries) produced by the Liberal media back in the late 80's and 90's that claimed we've reached the tipping point in oil production and that we would have a barren landscape and total disaster would strike by 2010.

I suppose you will always have those "The sky is falling" types and the morons who follow them, but the world hasn't ended and due to the types of things like those documentaries and teachers in school teaching the end of the world is near I really don't pay such stuff much interest. We've only been keeping track of the weather for a short period in history and from the measly 40 some years I've been around not much has changed (an example is the entire Hurricane situation (as I've been in my fare share of them) - a bad one comes along that doesn't even compare to the devastation caused by ones 20 years ago and suddenly "it's the worst hurricane in years".) On a flip note it also reminds me of the Christian pastors who tell you the world is ending and ask for money so you'll have a seat reserved in heaven (I don't see much distinction between the two actually).

I do believe that using oil does indeed affect the climate, but so do natural events on our planet and out in space that are beyond our control. I don't see how trying to scream "We're all doomed unless you pay us more money" is even being considered as these people going around toting these ideas aren't in any sort of position to help nor do they rarely in their own personal lives try to reduce their own personal "carbon footprint".

I don't like automobiles - they are a top contributor of death and pollute the environment so creating "green" cars that in all reality use more energy to produce and sustain then normal "dirty" cars do doesn't make much sense to me. Personally, I think we should do away with them all together. It would help reduce the overweight people problem, make communities more like communities, cut pollution and keep a large percentage of the population from dying. I admire some of the larger cities that are starting to actually get rid of their roadways as I think that is more of an actual solution then trying to scare people into giving you their money in which you will use to extort control over them for even more of their money.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> This is a complicated one. So I gave it the most outrageous title I could think of.



There isn't much of a difference in what they are doing than what happens when you're brought into the school system in the USA. Instead of being taught how to think, how to do math, how the body works you're inundated with people telling you what you should think, dumbfounded methods of doing math that leave you unprepared for real mathematical studies and limit your ability to perform normal jobs, theories on how the body should work and all sorts of other political garbage. I haven't been in school in a long time, but they used to make you perform rituals like the "Pledge Your Allegiance" to the Homeland and participate in activities based solely on their version of history (singing songs, playing political based games, etc ...).

I suppose if you happen to disagree with the political influence that is taking place due to the fact that you disagree with the particular politics than you may dislike it. How about if they were including political ideals that you agreed with? Would that be okay? See, I don't think that "school" should be involved in politics. *I think they should teach you how to think independently, read, write, do math and spell - that's it.* Maybe later in schooling teaching you how to work on cars, work with wood (trade skills) is also important, but get rid of all of the stuff that isn't a core fundamental to being able to survive in society. I don't need nor ever wanted someone telling me how I should think about political issues and who I should vote for because own their personal bias (I tell people they "should vote" and not "who to vote for").


----------



## piratesephiroth (Apr 14, 2019)

cots said:


> I do believe that our existence on Earth effects the climate. I don't think that climate change is a hoax. However, I think it's been used to control other people and keep the rich wealthy and certain political players in power. Your video reminds me of those "doomsday" scenarios (supposed documentaries) produced by the Liberal media back in the late 80's and 90's that claimed we've reached the tipping point in oil production and that we would have a barren landscape and total disaster would strike by 2010.



Yeah, climate change is definitely real because that's just how the planet works.
Now there's no solid evidence that it has any connection to human activity.


----------



## cots (Apr 14, 2019)

piratesephiroth said:


> Yeah, climate change is definitely real because that's just how the planet works.
> Now there's no solid evidence that it has any connection to human activity.



Well, for an example we have an hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere caused by various toxic gases we overproduced. I'm not exactly sure what filling our air with other toxic pollutants, filling our oceans with plastic garbage, filling our lakes and rivers with toxic substances or setting off nuclear bombs is doing to the Earth, but by all visible standards it doesn't look pretty to me. I'm sure we do have an influence on the change - not so much as say when a volcano goes off or radiation from the sun hits us, but it's not helping the situation.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2019)

Regarding the "hoax" narrative. Lets look at this in broad lines.

Lets say everyone knows, that the UN isnt working anymore, neither is the WTO - at least not in "being aspirational projects" anyone gives a fuck about. The climate summits are at least another structure where many nations get together and talk about economic development. Not just regions, not just economic blocks.

Lets go full haywire - and say, climate change is all just a narrative to cap economic development and do that structurally, so in a coordinated fashion. Even if you choose not to 'believe' (more on that later) in climate change, there are other aspects, that will make it necessary for us not to "grow" on an oil based economy anymore. (If everyone in china wants to own two cars, ...)

So in a sense its all a big "when does the pivot (I like that word..  ) take place".  China may like it to show the world, that they take leadership on this issue, while the US does not for example - so thats part of a potential political play - but thats really just "who cares" from most of our daily lives perspectives.

The point I want to make is, that you can look at the actions that take place currently and say - well, if they take place, and if they cost that much - thats sort of a reality. What I mean by that is, f.e. the aformentioned erosion zones (sea walls), that will get erected.

Listen to this: h**ps://youtu.be/RoWXvMQ3xqg?t=3581 and you've got a definite "parts of Brooklyn and Queens will be abandoned within a generation" message. Thats a pretty definitive statement.  You should be able to test "its all a hoax" against that.. 

Now disclaimer, I dont think much about that podcast, and listening to that NYT "climate reporter", feels largely like doomsday jockey meets "loves the attention - personality type", so I'll not have you watch the entire thing, but that snippet stuck in my mind.  And there is a positive to this as well - the guy selling the Greta tagline here to a US audience, is filled to the brim with climate change talking points, so you get a quick cross section of everything thats out there in a short time. He might not be the best at weighing stuff, and simply likes the talking points, that sound the most outrageous, but then - you can filter, however you like to.. 


Now coming from the other perspective - why is it hip to deny climate change?

1. Humans are built that way - what we dont like, we ignore. What we dont like, and what makes our life worse, with no propensity to make it better, we ignore much more intensely. 

2. The US just became the largest net exporter of natural gas, and enegery independent, meaning they can control the worlds natural resources consumption, by price movements. If and when they buy Saudi Oil, for example molds the price of oil for the entire rest of the world, and because they've shed much of the external dependency (Canada counted as internal  ), they can act freely here - which is a definitive power momentum, they are NOT willing to let go of just because of a climate target.

3. Because the US pumped up natural energy production in country to a large extent - those sectors have become important economic factors. Hence, there is lobbying and PR.

4. All of that is a trajectory, thats important over the next 20-30 years. Because thats the period the US "bought" themselves in terms of energy independence - its not even a generation. After that you look at the same problems the rest of the world does currently, again.

5. But at the same time China is a net energy importer (they dont have any oil, they dont have much coal, ...) so controlling the global energy sector is very much whats interesting to the US right now. China on the other hand - at climate summits, that talk about pricing carbon emissions - short term hates it, long term very much its in their interest as well. (If goals are reasonable, they are still the factory of the world.) Europe, also net importer - same story.

Thats the economic side. Now about the "its a hoax" statement. Who would say that in this current environment? The critical thinker, that weighs standpoints, or the nitwit thats straight financed by fossile fuel interests which ONLY will be that important for maybe 30 years max (declining sector, if they dont diversify..  ).

Also there is the propensity in human nature to dismiss everything we dont like. Especially if it is connected to responsibilities we are called out upon not acting on.

In my concept of reality - this is far more likely to be the case.  Now - where we meet on common ground again is, that it doesnt matter - you dont pivot a global climate summit goal - by mobilizing children in Europe to bash politicians for no reason.

The popular movements got something HORRIBLY wrong in that regard currently (children are dumb, if you think about it..  ) - your role would not be to convince politics to take harsher action, your role would be to convince yourselves to do so. But thats not popular. And fear, and economic decline, and constraint - are about the worst talking points for a popular movement in general, so you divert and bash politicians instead. Also you need childrens eyes to sell it "because nobody can be mad at them".

Probably.  And because if you make 25 year olds sell it, then they are actively campaigning for a worse economic future for their families. Which makes NO sense.


----------



## notimp (Apr 19, 2019)

I take back my comment on Attenborough.



> BBC One - Climate Change - The Facts https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00049b1 David Attenborough explores the science of, and potential solutions to, climate change.


If you watch the first five minutes of this, he currently is more into producing horror pron, with barely true statements ("ITS GOING TO BE DESASter (if we continue on our current trajectory)" - which we arent, "Its even progressing faster, than many believed", "there isn't much time left">intercut into>the science is now clear, with a countdown orchestra tune undercut and other FUN moments like that.)

This is the worst thing, I've seen, that has ever come out of the BBC.

Now watch it. Because I said so.

It simply takes people for stupid morons, and then uses all kinds of filmmaking suspense tricks and rhetorical quiffs, to make - disaster porn.

Attenborough narrated.

Facts they probably get right, presentation is an insult.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Exactly 02:20 minutes into it until the Greta is presented in an emotional home story fashion. Even before the tile roll. Nothing against her, but eff this presentation.


----------



## notimp (Apr 19, 2019)

I clipped the beginning, and an emotional setpiece part from the first 20 minutes of the BBC documentary with facts in the title.
https://streamable.com/paseg

https://streamable.com/yihis
On the second one I refused to also include the part where they went into "its been a miracle that we were saved, and we thought that we would die" - with intercuts of a lake and burning trees, because they were saved by a boat. I couldnt take it. To me thats just emotional manipulation pure and unaltered.


----------



## notimp (Apr 20, 2019)

Interesting thing I just noticed. If you tell people David Attenborough just narrated a manipulative Documentary intro, that uses suspense tricks of filmmaking and intentionally tendential language - on the BBC.

(For a good cause, and with correct arguments in the rest of the documentary.)

In a thread called "indoctrination of children".

They stay away - and dont watch it.

Should have seen that one coming.. *huh* 

But on the details, I'm still - arguably - correct. Its just, that people are more into tonality...  

Always.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Apr 30, 2019)




----------



## notimp (May 1, 2019)

Scientology recruitment video? 

It was freaking hard to catch the irony in this one. 

An economic solution will look something like this: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/automation-vs-job-creation-by-daron-acemoglu-2019-04

If the political majorities are there (big state financed investment projects, higher education initiatives in the US). For europe its harder..


----------



## notimp (May 24, 2019)

The story now has a follow up. And its still freaking hard to explain it in a way that doesnt have a mob of angry people grabbing their pitchforks to come after you.

So in germany a youtuber picked up several talking points of the conservative parties position on different topics and "destroyed them" using valid (known good) sources. The video also included a big segment about climate change.

Sources were basically valid, but the youtube didn't grasp the scope. Namely globalization.

(China controls the resource chain on photovoltaics, which is why structurally germany cant outcompete them in that field. In all other renewable energy tech germany is working on, international demand isnt there yet (in mass) which means, that research and development investments now are fine - but to call for germany to go green faster would actually harm its trajectory towards producing green tech thats needed in 30 years. Also deviating from the IPCC goal isnt so bad - right now, as long as "things fall into place" later on (even if this sounds like an excuse) - and all penalty payments, that you have to pay right now - can be funneled into reducing CO2 output in other EU states, that arent near germanies level of industry - where reducing CO2 is comparatively more expensive. The motivation and agency setting is needed - but whats actually wrong currently is the notion, that green tech can be a "viable and growing" buisnessmodel for a large segment of the german economy. And thats maybe the shortest - you can explain this to people, without them getting mad. While also explaining, that its ok, because effectively germany produces 2.3% of the worlds CO2 emissions. And if they stray from the target a little (which they have wowed not to do and getting back onto curve by 2040) - its actually, not highly significant - in "being an example" maybe even more so than in practice.)

But. You had all the children.

And now youtubers have grasped, that this is an issue - thats emotionally loaded, and where no one dares to confront anyone on the public stage.

So now the "destroying the conservative party" video on that issue goes viral and gets 7mio hits. (A figure, where the political party actually has to react to it, a week before european elections) To which the addressed party can only respond in a pdf - because the issue is complicated, and none of the spin you could give it is popular.

Which leads to an "open letter video by 80 youtubers" - now solely on climate change efforts of germany, because thats the most popular topic, that are half faking concern for virtue signaling reasons, and half deeply concerned, because the children are on our streets, and scientists on TV. And because popularity is what makes them money.

And then the result looks like this (german, but again, you'll get the premise regardless of a potential language barrier):


*sigh*

Did I mention in the past, that in China you "invite your youtubers to tea" once they get past a certain follower amount? (Meaning you sit them down, and get them on state line (message control). Yeah, we (democracies) cant do that.)

edit: Forgot the most important part. Those 80+ youtubers now campaign for you not to vote any of the center parties at european elections. Which by default benefits the right wingers, because their clientel doesnt listen to those videos.  Luckily its mostly the youth that gets swayed - which doesnt matter anyhow.  (Demographics)


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 24, 2019)

I don't see reason to be outraged with this, too much effort, perhaps lightly annoyed.
It is too light to make my emotional thermometer move, aka I don't give enough of a fuck.
It doesn't look right, neither too wrong or different than what we had in the past (aka kids like to demonstrate to skip school even if the demonstration is about deciding what type of cheese the moon looks like, that's not new), but as said above, meh.

PS: and sure everybody can reduce the amount of emissions and pollution in a very simple way, stop using you car to go to the supermarket three blocks a way you lazy ass, and also use public transportation instead of travelling alone in a 5 passengers car to your workplace. A social behavior change to avoid consuming resources like idiots as a whole sounds more effective to me TBH.


----------



## notimp (May 24, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> PS: and sure everybody can reduce the amount of emissions and pollution in a very simple way, stop using you car to go to the supermarket three blocks a way you lazy ass, and also use public transportation instead of travelling alone in a 5 passengers car to your workplace. A social behavior change to avoid consuming resources like idiots as a whole sounds more effective to me TBH.


Thats actually an interesting part that I believe I havent gone into my thoughts about yet.

So - in all projections I have read "reducing consumption" is always part of the occation (because solving it with technology alone isnt fast enough) - but moreso as a "buffer".

So - to convince people to change behavior - you need, marketing. And marketing/pr alone. You dont need tech - you dont need politics. (Apart from taxes, which people still dont want (opinion polls).)

But in the current configuration, you now have children screaming at politicians, to do something they cant do, faster, which they cant do - because science (who look at this without economic numbers) - using tropes, that are very dear to my heart ('evil' corporations), but then what they are asking doesnt add up to an economic model.

So something has gone wrong here.

Or right. Because you'd have never convinced that many folks with "dont fly, dont eat meat" slogans (which is the outcome needed), so with "its politics fault" you got masses.

Amping up children is still a problem ethics wise, and Greta is interesting from many perspectives (I like her very much - ) - but in the end, that form of marketing is needed for people to change their own behavior - and not so much politics. At least not in germany.

In the US - different story. But then I cant imaging a Greta working there..  But then, I wouldnt have imagined her working in europe either. 

TLDR; Its complicated, and the 'just go with the flow' slogan is so much more enticing.


----------



## notimp (May 25, 2019)

In a reaction to the reaction pdf of the conservative party, one of the "Scientists for future" (please dont read literally  ) - has positioned his frame.

In response to 'Germany only produces 2.3% of CO2 emissions'.


> Factcheck: Luxemburg only produces 0.03 percent of CO2 emissions. [IEA18]. That doesnt prevent the country from having to stick up tho its climatechange goals. The parisienne climate agreement is based on everyone fulfilling their part. You even state yourselves, that China und the USA together are responsible for 43% of CO2 emissions. This means that 57% are caused by other countries. Even if it would be possible that China and the US drop their emissions linearly to zero in eight years time - the remaining rest of the world would stick to "business as usual", the 1.5°C Target would be missed. Everyone has to contribute. In Germany the per capita CO2 emissions are more than double than the global average. [IEA18]. Thats why we have an especially high responsibility to act against climate change.


src: https://www.volker-quaschning.de/artikel/2019-05_Stellungnahme-CDU/index.php

Thats the core of the argument here. And it kind of shows that the scientist is ideologically motivated. Which isnt necessarily bad.

- "The rest of the world" isnt staying at business as usual. This isnt how economics work. This isnt how technology development works. This is guaranteed by increasing penalty pays (how politics work in that field) - this is also what all states agreed on at the IPCC meetings. Germany f.e. has steadily cut emissions so far.


> It has taken Germany 28 years to reduce emissions by 30.8 percent. Since the government target for 2030 stands at minus 55 percent, there are 12 years left for a further cut of around 24 percentage points.


src: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets

So if this trend would continue, they would end up at 43% (from the 1990 reference point), instead of 55% - so thats the disparity for business as usual. Now - you have to add single time effects like "getting out of atom energy", or having a trend towards "heavier and more inefficient vehicles", the likes of which arent likely to be repeated in the following years - so the trajectory is likely to increase, just from the point of view of existing planning. Motivation from childres eyes in everyones minds helps as well

- Parisien IPCC target isnt 1.5°C but less than 2°C - which is a white lie that hasnt picked up by anyone - because hey, its good to do better, right.

- Per capita CO2 emissions are what they are - but the comparison argument is a little strange. Because he uses the global average to compare. Now germany is an industrialized state. Our GDP is heavily linked to CO2 emissions - so reducing to average world levels does what to GDP? Now the idea is to unlink GDP from CO2 levels, but that doesnt automatically produce more or equal GDP growth, so its actually an effort - its not a simple replace and be happy.  (Not politicians fault.)

The argument, that we are especially responsible to act as promised, because we are an industrialised state, kind of ranks lower than, we are because historically we caused a lot of emissions, and get almost none of the detriments (geography). And that in societal debates within the country, counts for almost nothing.
(Everyone in Germany has in their minds that they are doing it for _their_ grandchildren. And thats important as well. The way the unfair world works, is that their grandchildren will have a little less panoramic winters. And more migration pressure. Thats it. We wont be suffering from famins - because we'll buy away our food needs 'from others'. People in coastal regions will have to move - sometimes. Thats it - for their grandchildrens lifetimes. Biodiversity doesnt count for much.)

So if thats all the guy is thinking about - hes actually also not presenting the entire picture.  (Not at all thinking about economics.) But he can be a good activist. The other points in his rebuttal are better, but less relevant.

edit: Average reduction of CO2 output in percentage points per year towards the 1990 marker between 2000 and 2017 was actually 0.8% per year. That he mentions as well. And thats actually a little low. So more credence to his point.

edit2: This is the other side of the story (also from his rebuttal):


> The current EEG-law caps the subsidies for photovoltaic energy, maybe even as soon as next year. The combination of chinese competition and the decline of the domestic photovoltaic market by about 80% as well as political uncertainty (meaning, not having protected that market, not having increases subsidies) have cost 80.000 jobs in photovoltaics so far. About 40.000 jobs are currently endangered in the windenergy industry.


Now add to that, that china owns the value chain on source minerals for photovoltaics, and that exporting wind power hasnt taken off yet (cost still too high), and you've got almost the entire picture.  Also add that the coal industry maybe only account for 60.000 jobs, but that they are in east germany, where its harder to replace them structurally - and suddenly you aren crying "corruption" so much any longer. Also add to that, that for photovoltaics and wind, we need viable storage solutions, because you cant as easily turn them on and off - and there (batteries) is where the actual value produced in our country is supposed to come from (apart from large cutting edge-industial technology, that countries like the US and China arent requesting right now), and that those industries havent been bootstraped so far (but we are on the way) - and you kind of understand Germanys reluctance to get out of coal and buy chinese solar cells at lower prices, than it would cost to sustain a photovoltaics industry in country.
(Instead of batteries, you could also ruin mountainous regions and build water based pump storage plants, but there the green lobbies also tell you that they are heavily against that. Other technologies currently in development.)

Now why are subsidies for coal "ok" and for photovoltaics they are not? Because those are resources we have in our possession, in country. Why are they ok for oil? Because everyone (apart from the oil countries and the US) kind of pays those. Still no corruption.  (Well, oil... )


----------



## notimp (May 26, 2019)

Transition losses, vs. longterm losses of delayed inactivity - according to a strategy paper (conjuring up different model scenarios) by the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative. (20 large long term investors.)

Scenarios:
https://www.unepfi.org/publications...mate-risk-assessment-in-response-to-the-tcfd/

https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/TCFD-Changing-Course.pdf

Comparing 4 portfolios


a Market Portfolio of 30,000 companies
a Top 1,200 Companies Portfolio that closely mimics the MSCI World Index
a Coal Portfolio, and
a Renewable Energies Portfolio

across 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C worlds.

The four portfolios could be seen as "general public", "big companies", "fossil fuel industry", and "renewable energy industry".

What "green positive" investors are caring about is not "saving the world" but rather transitioning to a low carbon economy (think 'because some day oil is going to run out' and other reasons).

In the following I'm only interested in the "general public" portfolio (30.000 companies).



> Analysis of a ‘Market Portfolio’ which consists of approximately 30,000 publicly listed companies and represents the investable market at large highlights climate-related investment risk. The 1.5°C scenario, in line with the latest IPCC special report, exposes a significant amount of transition risk, affecting as much as 13.16% of overall portfolio value (Table 2: Policy Risk, 1.5°C). Considering that total assets under management for the largest 500 investment managers in the world total USD 81.2 trillion, this would represent a value loss of USD 10.68 trillion.



Transitioning towards a 1.5°C future in those models (looking at a 15 years timespan from today onwards) would cost 13.1% of portfolio value in policy risk. Representing 10.68 trillion lost across the worlds 500 largest investment managers. (That arent on board (thinking all along the same lines), btw - this is a paper basically trying to convince them to get on board.  As I understand it.)

Now contrast this - with everybody being very hyped about 1.5°C and Greta. 

Because companies are already transitioning, negative impact of 'physical risk' isnt as hight and gets reduced to -2.14% in the models.



> The good news is that companies have already actively started working on the transition to a low carbon economy. The resulting creation of low carbon technology opportunities therefore offsets this high policy risk noticeably (Table 2: Technology Opportunity, 1.5°C). The physical risk impact is negative at -2.14% and would increase further, if the world is not successful in curbing GHG emissions significantly over the next two decades.



Now what is 'physical risk' in the models?


> It is beyond those 15 years that the physical impacts of climate change are forecasted to drastically intensify, especially under higher GHG emissions pathways of 3°C and beyond.


"Bad stuff" from climate change.

Now - this entire decline of portfolio value gets offset by 'technological opportunity' although not as much, that in the next 15 years - we'd see structural growth arising out of it.



> Overall, considering that low carbon technology opportunities will help offset the policy risk, and physical risk is minimal for the reasons mentioned above, the total, aggregated value loss under the 1.5°C scenario is substantial at -4.56% or USD 3.7 trillion off the assets of the world’s 500 largest investment managers.



Now that you understand the metrics - lets look at the outcome:







Total outcome (see VaR) for "general public" (30.000 companies) over the next 15 years, transitioning towards a carbon neutral economy. In accordance with climate summit goals. Fucked (-4.56%), fucked (-3.36%), and fucked (-1.84%).

How fucked? Depends on the sector those companies are working in.

Policy risk across sectors:




Aggriculture, Transportation and Utility Services very fucked, the rest fucked. This still gets offset by "technological opportunities" - which look like this:





Doesnt offset risk by much, Transportation still very (as in second most) fucked.

(Other tables for physical risks available as well - but then, thats less risk overall.)

But now we have Greta, and we can do "more faster now". So whats the difference?



> Under the GCAM4 scenario the policy risk increases from -8.16% to -9.13%, potentially costing investors a difference of close to 1% if governments were to delay policy action. For this analysis, the sum of the overall discounted costs from policy risk for each company in this Market Portfolio, covering 30,000 companies, was compared the resulting cost impact for the two models. The costs are enormous; USD 4.3 trillion and USD 5.4 trillion, respectively. Delaying policy action under GCAM4 results in a cost increase of USD 1.2 trillion. Even worse, delaying action would not just increase policy risk, but also result in much greater physical impacts from extreme weather hazards (not included here). Table 5 presents the overall results.








Great. 1% less policy risk (already factored into the first table). Thanks Greta.

Please notice, that the authors only plotted the 2°C scenario, because guess what...  Could be a coincidence, but its already what we basically are aiming for.

So that is what Greta is for ("Politics got to act NOW.").

Important numbers are in the first table. How people deal with the next 15 years of economical decline is still up to them and marketing.

In 15 years time I'm 50 btw. Thanks for having been born into the decline generation, that still was presented with their babyboomer family with a "why isnt he wealthy, did he drink away all that he's got, now lets go onto a world cruise by cruiseliner" mindset.

The problem with declining growth - as always is wealth distribution. Over that we can fight once baby boomers have died out. So when I'm 45 to 50.


----------



## notimp (May 26, 2019)

Here is a plot of who is most affected by physical risks ("bad stuff from climate change") only looking at the next 15 years:









Now the metric is slanted towards "most affected" - but still europe is hardly affected by 'bad stuff from climate change' (direct effects, migration pressures - different story). Thats only 15 years into the future - but I can assure you, from other sources, that the children now on the streets in europe, will hardly be affected by increased physical risks ('bad stuff from climate change' - direct effects) - in their lifetimes. Because that stuff isn't 'fair'.

Hm.

Also note, that the costs here are in 'million USD' as in "not significant at all". (Again - only over the next 15 years, so until I'm 50 years old.)


----------



## notimp (May 26, 2019)

I still have to give you the papers explanation for why 'Greta - more faster now' results in 1 percentage point of reduced losses over the next 15 years, and thats simply because policy risks for companies, when transitioning in a shorter period of time (think 2040 goals) get larger. "It will not be as easy" argument. Thats all.

At the same time 'Greta - 1.5°C goal is what we should aim for' in comparison to the (lower than) 2°C goal thats actually in the climate accords causes 1.2 percentage points of value losses.

Over the next 15 years.

Technological advancements already included. Over a cross section of all sectors. Looking at the entire world.

edit: Greta, is a climate activist (entire movement rather - same one this thread initially was about) popular in europe - btw.  If you are not familiar.


----------

