@morvoran Looks like all the liberals are teaming up on you. I guess you're going to have to make 20 more threads to expose their evil.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea
- Thread starter morvoran
- Start date
- Views 43,192
- Replies 444
- Likes 9
This thread shows me that the cancer known as the human race needs to be wiped off this planet already, me, included. We need to be burned away with magnifying glass, also known as a civilization-ending comet.
Funny yet also sad that the primary concern of many Swedes is a climate change hoax rather than being systematically raped, murdered and replaced by an infinite influx of migrants who will never adhere to this particular line of nonsense.
Okay now its clear you're just a fucking troll. Seriously why aren't you banned yet?
Thats actually interesting but from a different angle. The current popular climate action initiative more or less originated in Germany and the scandinavian countries.
We in germany had the exact same 'scandal' around a women teacher pledging the exact same (https://www.spiegel.de/karriere/ver...ifest-gegen-das-kinder-kriegen-a-1256963.html), causing a slew of articles about if this can be proper - having the mainstream side on - no, not really, but having this notion of 'there is something to it' still around.
Mathematically the argument is sound:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
Statistically - European countries will loose 30% of their residents within the next half century (but not because of this, but because of long term trends, and urbanization). (Keep your conspiracy theories at bay.)
But the most interesting angle is, that this is now happening again in the US:
Saving grace for rightwing folks.
- Mainstream in Gemany decided - no, thats certainly not the solution
- Climate debate in the US is, far, far less pronounced than in germany or the scandinavian countries
(Which hurts our long term interests and those of China most. I have still to figure out how exactly (despite from cracking the isolationist american trend - but stuff like this speaks a clear language: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/s...ordern-schaerferen-klimaschutz-a-1287462.html (German - coalition out of 515 finantial actiors (thats the minority of financial investors in terms of capital) including Deutschebank and Allianz insurance group, signs demands to pivot towards the 1.5°C goal. This comes in the week before the UN climate summit in NY. All of them together hold investment capital of 10 times the GDP of germany. Which still is the minority.)
Their argument for why they are doing it, follows this explanation:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-bank-of-canada-financial-system-review-1.5137625
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
The whole thing (popular movement), as far as I can tell is mostly there to get the public 'engaged in it' so that they will take carbon prices (carbon taxes, or carbon fees), which are part of the agreements that followed the paris climate accord, that the US officially left (but some of your states still follow conceptually).
edit: Other things you can do to 'safe the climate' on the individual level is to reduce meat consumption by 2/3s (vegan is better than vegetarian, but low meet consumption is sometimes better than vegetarian (on less resource intensive meat) - because vegetarians need cows for milk products), and cut fuel intensive stuff like flying. And what actions the state can take (apart from cutting economic growth)
depend on the individual state - because of value add calculations (so what you can do without ruining your economy). In germany thats mostly to invest in thermal retrofiting housing projects, and reduce individual traffic emissions..
Moonshot initiatives in green new tech arent likely in europe - so from my perspective, the entire popular movement is mostly there to explain to millenials, why they should do nothing about becoming a lost generation (no economic growth during the most important years of their life). I'm not in favor of this. Although there are reasons for why it (recessions (or in the US - cutting growth) and decoupling economies from the growth paradigm) arguably has to be done now.
Also - there is a UN movement to pledge nations to be carbon free by 2050. Which will be discussed at the NY summit, but as far as top level sources have said two weeks ago - europe is not ready to pledge to do it as a whole, although we will be maybe next year.
We in germany had the exact same 'scandal' around a women teacher pledging the exact same (https://www.spiegel.de/karriere/ver...ifest-gegen-das-kinder-kriegen-a-1256963.html), causing a slew of articles about if this can be proper - having the mainstream side on - no, not really, but having this notion of 'there is something to it' still around.
Mathematically the argument is sound:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
Statistically - European countries will loose 30% of their residents within the next half century (but not because of this, but because of long term trends, and urbanization). (Keep your conspiracy theories at bay.)
But the most interesting angle is, that this is now happening again in the US:
Saving grace for rightwing folks.
- Mainstream in Gemany decided - no, thats certainly not the solution
- Climate debate in the US is, far, far less pronounced than in germany or the scandinavian countries
(Which hurts our long term interests and those of China most. I have still to figure out how exactly (despite from cracking the isolationist american trend - but stuff like this speaks a clear language: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/s...ordern-schaerferen-klimaschutz-a-1287462.html (German - coalition out of 515 finantial actiors (thats the minority of financial investors in terms of capital) including Deutschebank and Allianz insurance group, signs demands to pivot towards the 1.5°C goal. This comes in the week before the UN climate summit in NY. All of them together hold investment capital of 10 times the GDP of germany. Which still is the minority.)
Their argument for why they are doing it, follows this explanation:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-bank-of-canada-financial-system-review-1.5137625
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
The whole thing (popular movement), as far as I can tell is mostly there to get the public 'engaged in it' so that they will take carbon prices (carbon taxes, or carbon fees), which are part of the agreements that followed the paris climate accord, that the US officially left (but some of your states still follow conceptually).
edit: Other things you can do to 'safe the climate' on the individual level is to reduce meat consumption by 2/3s (vegan is better than vegetarian, but low meet consumption is sometimes better than vegetarian (on less resource intensive meat) - because vegetarians need cows for milk products), and cut fuel intensive stuff like flying. And what actions the state can take (apart from cutting economic growth)
depend on the individual state - because of value add calculations (so what you can do without ruining your economy). In germany thats mostly to invest in thermal retrofiting housing projects, and reduce individual traffic emissions..Moonshot initiatives in green new tech arent likely in europe - so from my perspective, the entire popular movement is mostly there to explain to millenials, why they should do nothing about becoming a lost generation (no economic growth during the most important years of their life). I'm not in favor of this. Although there are reasons for why it (recessions (or in the US - cutting growth) and decoupling economies from the growth paradigm) arguably has to be done now.
Also - there is a UN movement to pledge nations to be carbon free by 2050. Which will be discussed at the NY summit, but as far as top level sources have said two weeks ago - europe is not ready to pledge to do it as a whole, although we will be maybe next year.
Last edited by notimp,
The reality is that i dont see humanity going past 2050.
Lets keep pumping shit into the air cuz it triggers the libs
the whole nothing is wrong with our current world, lets not even try to reduce our footprint is a form of sad self low expectation.
HE TOOK YOUR JOB SG854. YOU HAD 1 JOB!!!
and you, thank you for existing and reminding me that conservatives can be sane well thought out individuals.
Lets keep pumping shit into the air cuz it triggers the libs
the whole nothing is wrong with our current world, lets not even try to reduce our footprint is a form of sad self low expectation.
HE TOOK YOUR JOB SG854. YOU HAD 1 JOB!!!
and you, thank you for existing and reminding me that conservatives can be sane well thought out individuals.
Last edited by WD_GASTER2,
Read my posting, I'm informed.
This is my jam. (Because there is a part of me that hates it. )
Western countries (europe especially) will be least affected by direct effects from climate change, but the indirect effects (like migration or economic impact) are kind of killer.
'Life as they know it' for the kids protesting (in Europe, in the US) will hardly change in the next 100 years. (From direct climate effects.) But thats not so much the point. The point is, that changes have to be layered in now, or the rate of change later (in 100 years at lets say 4°C warming trajectory) will be too much to handle.
US disagrees officially, but thats the Trump administration..
This is my jam.
(Because there is a part of me that hates it. )Western countries (europe especially) will be least affected by direct effects from climate change, but the indirect effects (like migration or economic impact) are kind of killer.
'Life as they know it' for the kids protesting (in Europe, in the US) will hardly change in the next 100 years. (From direct climate effects.) But thats not so much the point. The point is, that changes have to be layered in now, or the rate of change later (in 100 years at lets say 4°C warming trajectory) will be too much to handle.
US disagrees officially, but thats the Trump administration..
Last edited by notimp,
I guess I'm going to have to make a thread called "The Liberal Agenda: Who What When Where Why and How"
I never got as much hate as this morvoran guy. I hardly get called idiot or retard, unlike this morvoran specimen. So this guy is on some other planet.
well, i am pretty sure he is just outright trolling at this point but who knows.
I kinda think he's genuine, a little bit. But this guy is becoming obsessive. Too many threads. I bet you he's like "yes this will show dem liberals that'll show that Xzi guy a hyuck."
fine with me, i would rather have an robot to wipe my ass when i get older anyway
during a time when we are going to struggle with replacing the workforce in the near immediate future a protest movement like this would actually hurt the economy a lot. not saying it's going to work but if it ever picked up enough steam we'd need to really double down on immigration and actively recruit from poorer nations to take thier skilled labour or migrant workers and automation will take hold at an accellerated pace which would really hurt a countries buying power.
Still a crazy idea I won't deny that.
Still a crazy idea I won't deny that.
Its not an actual protest movement. Its like - rebel, rebel on the flags, but then compatible to 6 out of 7 of our political parties - because the gist of it is a UN program on sustainable development. Its like - 'do something' (what exactly we dont care about), the movement.
Which means - at this point in time - people are convincing themselves of a new need/principal.
Also in Europe the near future working population until now (lets see what happens until the 27th - where the next big protest rally internationally is announced) isn't a substantial part of it. So its mostly the old folks (boomers), and the kids who want pony farms. (Transnational, liberal pony farms. )
But old folks are whats deciding elections. (Because they have the numbers. Still.)
(Old folks - intrinsicly want millennials (of which they made fewer) or their kids to have more time for them, so they LOOOOOVE ruining the economic outlook for our generation. Because they already have money - and they can dangle that carrot in front of their kids, so they come visit more often. This is an edge opinion, but in terms of mass psychology - not wrong. Also they want to act as if they werent the baddies who caused that mess (by not acting - when they got the info, right around the year 2000ish), and now want to do nothing about it except pretend. (If growth slows down - economic inequality will rise, and standards of living will fall.))) Pretend - because they still don't produce Moonshot projects - or more equality (in a time where inequality will rise).
They - because in europe they have the money we want to 'restructure' society in the energy transformation to renewable energy sources. Collectively.
Which means - at this point in time - people are convincing themselves of a new need/principal.
Also in Europe the near future working population until now (lets see what happens until the 27th - where the next big protest rally internationally is announced) isn't a substantial part of it. So its mostly the old folks (boomers), and the kids who want pony farms. (Transnational, liberal pony farms.
)But old folks are whats deciding elections. (Because they have the numbers. Still.)
(Old folks - intrinsicly want millennials (of which they made fewer) or their kids to have more time for them, so they LOOOOOVE ruining the economic outlook for our generation. Because they already have money - and they can dangle that carrot in front of their kids, so they come visit more often. This is an edge opinion, but in terms of mass psychology - not wrong. Also they want to act as if they werent the baddies who caused that mess (by not acting - when they got the info, right around the year 2000ish), and now want to do nothing about it except pretend. (If growth slows down - economic inequality will rise, and standards of living will fall.))) Pretend - because they still don't produce Moonshot projects - or more equality (in a time where inequality will rise).
They - because in europe they have the money we want to 'restructure' society in the energy transformation to renewable energy sources. Collectively.
Last edited by notimp,
Mass disruption and action is only way significant change has ever been achieved.
Regardless of whether climate change is real or not, all talks about it in the west have offered no actual solutions and are only used in order to push socialism. The thing that proves this is that in every factor that contributes to it, USA and Europe have the smallest contributions of all the world. The green new deal is just about creating a socialist country, and China, which is already socialist, gets no mention in these discussions, even though it causes much more pollution (also "per capita" is a meaningless statistic if you're trying to solve a problem rather than virtue signaling).
Well - that is wrong. The first part.
On the second first. They are only there to push socialism. Well - on some level - yes. Because here is the deal. The climate - kind of is global. So you cant safe it in one, or three of five countries. You need the G7 (top 7) at least. So yes - this is something that brings all nations onto one table again. Saying that America also has responsibility for Africa and such.
On the first part - no, they are solving it. They are just not solving it fast enough for it to have no impact on western societies.
So the way thats phrased in the prediction papers is, that -- middle class will have to lower their "growth expectation" -- to generate more time. Which is where the popular movement comes in.
So we 'can't just technologically 'innovate'' ourselves out of it.
-
If you are looking for 'one step solutions' - you are out of luck. Geoengineering the sun away (dust in the atmosphere) is messy, because wind (and suddenly you have an international incident with another country), and sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere by any other means than planting trees and then not burning them again - is very costly. Today.
So burn less oil. And until we are there to replace that with other technology, curb demand at the expense of middle classes (and the poor). Because the rich dont spend so much on heating.
In the short term also - eat less meat, because methane (cow digestive gas) is a much more potent climate gas. But it stays in the atmosphere shorter. So - if you kill all cows - which we can do (its just that ... food production), the methane problem is solvable. CO2 is the harder problem, because it adds up over time, and its hard to get it out of the atmosphere.
And if you dont believe in that. There is always peak oil.
And growth curves on that oil stuff - kind of look like that:
Last edited by notimp,
1. I don't think you understand what socialism is.
2. Why is America responsible for Africa? Why not the other way around? Africa is not exactly "green".
3. There is a solution, it's called nuclear power. No further innovation necessary on this point. Just implementation. Gas and diesel cars will be replaced by electric ones in the not so distant future, but i do not plan to get one before i can actually afford it.
1. I simplified immensly. You having responsibility for others by not following (current) market logic. This thread cant also hold a debate - where we try to explain to americans, that socialism (with a market attached to it still), has far, far less of a bad wrap in europe (and about a third of the world - because thats what we have).
2. Why is America responsble for Africa. The climate logic goes - because it is responsble for climate - as one of the top polluters. So no small nations vs nations argument - but the big, simple one.
Africa then factors in, because its cheaper to solve the problem there (f.e. plant trees to extend time tables).Now here is the deal. If America shuts itself off, and does nothing. Because of geographical and energy needs considerations. America also can coast it out the longest. (No real impact for your generation economically f.e.)
But then as the issue doesnt go away - when America comes out of this phase in lets say 50-70 years - depending on what everyone else did - its almost impossible to engineer the problem away then. (As far as we know now.)
Also - another reason why you have to have everyone do it at once 'logically' is that we are introducing 'another cost factor'. So if only 6 out of the G7 countries do it (to still 'safe the climate'), then the one that doesnt will profit so immensely, that.... Everyone will hate them.
Now - since this also is 'design' we have to make sure that countries will contribute to it voluntarily - since we could literally dial in 'the next winner' here at the debating table, if we force it. (And if we dont resort to war.) Thats why its important that everyone comes to the table voluntarily.
Logically its all flashed out.
Its sound. But then - people dont like 'technocratic' solutions. So now you have them discover the problem on their own. If the popular movement takes off in the US you'll have a hippie revival for a while - how does that sound to you.. (I'm still not sure, that I like that too much... I'm on the side of the still have as much short term growth as possible without messing it up camp, because - my agegroup would profit most from it economically.)
Last edited by notimp,
Similar threads
-
Psionic Roshambo
-
The Real Jdbye
*is birb*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
i think i heard of that, it's a good idea, shouldn't need a dedicated GPU just to run a LLM or video upscaling
-
-
-
@
BakerMan:
Have you ever been beaten by a wet spaghetti noodle by your girlfriend because she has a twin sister, and you got confused and fucked her dad? -
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I had a girlfriend who had a twin sister and they would mess with me constantly.... Until one chipped a tooth then finally I could tell them apart.... Lol
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
They would have the same hair style the same clothes everything... Really messed with my head lol
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@The Real Jdbye, I could see AMD trying to pull off the CPU GPU tandem thing, would be a way to maybe close the gap a bit with Nvidia. Plus it would kinda put Nvidia at a future disadvantage since Nvidia can't make X86/64 CPUs? Intel and AMD licensing issues... I wonder how much that has held back innovation.
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Yeah I think Nvidia s future lays in AI GPU acceleration stuff if they can get that going it's going to be super interesting in the long term
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
"OK Cortana I want that mountain a little taller and more snow on top, and I would like some random ancient pine forest around the bottom"
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
"Now we need a spring fed river flowing down the north side and add some wild life appropriate for the biome"
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Many TBs of assets and the programming of something like that is going to be tough but I think it's something we might see in 20 years maybe sooner
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Many TBs of assets and the programming of something like that is going to be tough but I think...