• 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

0x3000027E

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
341
Trophies
0
Age
43
XP
1,374
Country
United States
It is funny that these kids think anyone cares that they aren't going to have kids. No commenting on any of the politics here, I just think that part is funny.
Ah, to be young and idealist again!

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

Thunberg is a child, therefore climate change cant be real
I have never heard this argument. Rather, how proficient can she be at understanding the complexity of climate/weather systems at such a young age? The mathematics that describe these systems require a few years of college level math/modeling alone.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
I have never heard this argument. Rather, how proficient can she be at understanding the complexity of climate/weather systems at such a young age? The mathematics that describe these systems require a few years of college level math/modeling alone.
Stop, stop stop. :) That quote is taken out of context. :) I made fun of the threat title (broken logic), not state my believes there.

Thunberg is a 'symbol' a 'Joan d'Arc type' that gets discovered, and immediately shipped to Davos, and then has a public speech schedule for the next edit: six months, thats more impressive than that of Manfred Weber (in full campaign mode). :)

If you tentatively read through this thread, you'll notice, that I dont deny climate change, and I've helped to explain the concept to a few people that were deniers.


I just cant get over the PR thats in play here on part of a project of the global international intellectual elite. :) This one is personal. ;) I basically was asked at an event one year before Fridays for Future - or Thunberg became a thing, how I would 'make that topic more interesting for the mainstream' and have never quite forgotten that. ;) (Same group ('Fans of Stigliz and Jeffrey D. Sachs Inc, with gettogethers every year ;) ) then founded FFF in my country)


edit: Found my post on her speech schedule over the first months, impressive, isnt it? :)
https://gbatemp.net/threads/teens-p...e-with-great-idea.548483/page-13#post-8925392


edit: Video to watch if you are interested in the positional shift that took place in Davos in 2020, I think I posted it once already, but here you go.. :) :
 
Last edited by notimp,
  • Like
Reactions: 0x3000027E

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
Third and last in the series. (More PR.)


In before 10 views. ;)

edit: Sorry, this seems to be a reupload of a video already posted.
 
Last edited by notimp,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
If directed at me, no - sadly no.

Just physically sickened, finding the same people that promoted low innovation in the west, globalized expansion, and low wages all over the world to 'eradicate poverty', now effing lying (and I read microexpressions like a mofo, they know what they are doing in crafting and spewing a propaganda message, giving each other kudos for storytelling - to essentially reach the following outcomes:

- promote a little higher innovation load, but with risk shifted to the public, because large energy companies arent stupid enough to invest early
- promote effing suffering and consumption and living standards reduction on part of the developed world, which is ABSOLUTELY in line with the 'lower all wages' of the past, you know - to eradicate poverty by letting more people participate - just without the benefits globalization brought in the past. But dont you worry, there are new ones, like religious fulfillment of the self.
- globalized PR efforts, where people are payed to brainwash a youth to reach one goal, and one goal only - have politicians act against peoples short term interest, and in the interest of 'the next generation' (fuck millenials), payed for by the UN and sponsors, but thats really not much to talk about, if you are a crazy religious bigot who can be convinced to preach 'sustainability' you now get your costs covered, thats not that much of a monetary investment.


On top of that - continuing the age old game of "have the rich folks in society spend a mittens on feigning humanity - via financing 'art and lighthouse projects', retaining most of their investment - if internationally spread, reduce most of their risk - and getting public appraisal for, essentially founding cults and longterm investment. No risk, no opportunities anywhere to be founded - structurally.

Continuing the age old game of promoting some craze (in this case, good or needed for humanitys future), as an effing job generator, and 'a new opportunity for the masses', knowing perfectly well, that you want to prep up most of those efforts by shifting subsidies, into an industry - where as a total result productivity costs are hiked up. So more people loose jobs. Loose cars. Loose their effing weekly steak. But then - the sustainability benefit - and beans are yummy.

Continuing the effort of giving an opportunity to people that can brainwash best, and have no morals, trying to spin those efforts. Benefinting freaking boomers most, because not only can they consume all they want, create fewer children than they needed for care at an older age (productivity wise), create effing financial crisis, and as a result economic environments, where investment risk in the west is so high, everyone is more interested in share buybacks -- THEN effing tell their children to live a little less, for the benefit of the world, and their own.

Continuing the age old effort of finding fake, virtual metrics, that have nothing to do with the betterment of an individuals life, and promoting virtual friends, VR vacations, service economy, virtual business models (where no physical goods are shifted, just something is copied for distribution), as alternatives. Building metrics around that - and trying to make them seem as 'worth following' - when assessing quality of life.

Better have the tech ready to stupify people in masses early enough, when you sell them a worse ("but more fulfilling potentiallyTM) life.

And again - ALL of that to keep the globalized investor classes lifestyle stable. Oh, and the earth more conducive to human living needs.

There is everything wrong with this, on every level, on every approach, in implementation. You lie to people, you try to have them follow religious causes, you try to get their money for high risk low return investments, you fuck a generation, you absolutely manipulate trajectories and outlooks - but as an already well off person, you loose nothing, absolutely nothing - while doing so. (Because you can pay a little more to maintain your lifestyle, others cant.)

So me for my part - I'll fight until I'm in my grave, to have this message, right alongside with the 'climate - its good for the children' message, every step of the way.

Oh, and I was raised by someone very much into the green and sustainable ethos, I worked at small scale family farm during my summers. And I've experienced every inch on this way, how the society you built absolutely hated and despised people with that lets call it 'inner conviction' talked behind their back, laughed about them, rolled their eyes.

But now - just like magick, the next fringe group as about due for center stage, to have another excuse to lower peoples states of living.

The two most important factors currently? Getting efficiency up, and waste down - because thats the easy stuff, if you cant do that - real increases in cost to have companies retract from fossile energy are so much harder, they are unthinkable.

About as unthinkable as circular economies, right about today (who are we kidding, this is about allocations of goods shifting to different economies, because they are now able to pay as well).

And you do all of that, knowing its a lie, featuring the people who will effing suffer least in highfalutin panels, displaying their effing need to 'feel better than the rest' (because they are the ones that _really_ care (about society in 200 years)), lying into camera - producing the most disgusting PR possible (black is white, and consumer will is not only the base of politics, but also the demand, you first create to later say - isnt it great, its finally there, not at scale - but early adopters paying more, will also do for a while, influencing national politics financed from the international level)) -- but all of that, is absolutely fine and needed, because its without an alternative.


So young people - please just do the obvious here, and sell out to those interests. Because thats the way to become something in life. Alternative, app based food delivery honcho in the service economy.

F****ck.

Ego? ;)
 
Last edited by notimp,
D

Deleted User

Guest
"Climate change"
"Teens"

No one sees a problem? lol

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

I don't deny climate change at all but I also agree with OP that this is pretty stupid. Protesting and/or refusing to have kids because of climate change is pointless and absurd
Protesting...

...

...

...

That somehow then lead to riots and loots.

The new "normal" has normalized shit that in a normal society wouldn't be accepted

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

What you're describing is nothing of leftist or rightist. It's a personaly quality you see in them. Nothing to do with politics. Grouping either side in such ways detracts from real discussion about politics,
one person's decisions don't reflect the world's and
in this case wouldn't it be your ex-leader as well?
-edited for grammar
Left / Right

Politicians have divided people into two groups (left, right) and they're doing their job for free.

Jesse Ventura was correct. The good ones never win.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
That somehow then lead to riots and loots.
Not with climate change protests in europe, just brainwashed teens with a notion of 'collectivized effort' feeling good embedded in their selves, ankered to - of all things climate change.

The most BUREAUCRATIC and boring reason of all. You wont even see the outcome in your own lifetime. Tailormade to be tackled by institutions, and institutions only. (Long term planing horizons.)

If, humanity acted sooner. But it didnt. So oops, better brainwash me some children with mass events now... Promise them a great future in politics or something.

Those are amongst the connections you could make.. :) Looting and climate youth - dont go together so much.

Looting and enraged masses of people in the gilet jaunes, because you tried to eff middle classes over one too many times - more likely.


No, you should sell out to the climate interests, because they are the good ones, the clean ones, with the immaculate image! They'd never do something wrong! ;)

(Thats why they are so corporate sponsor compatible! Well that and, you really need a few new 'from dishwasher to millionaire' stories for the current age. 'Everyone can become a youtuber ran out of steam five years ago.' So create some 'sustainability superstars. Advertise with them. Change peoples behavior! Give them new metrics... Looting doesnt fit in that image.. :) )



If you havent gleaned it by now - "why are elites so much into moonshot (/lighthouse) projects". When you have f*ck you money, but really understand, that you cant help everyone, or even just all the people in your nation (f.e. because investment conditions (ROI) are poor). What do you do?

You build palaces. You realize, that you dont have to benefit many people, really - just, maybe the population of swizerland and new zealand - would be enough, no? And those like you, because of the monuments you build. The 'crazy projects' for posterity. That all in all - arent that costly, compared to the structural stuff.

So you dont pay for climate change mitigation. Of course you dont. That would be a philantropic effort. But you pay for the projects that produce the new trend, that does the stuff you yourself have understood as important - then you make society shift their goals. Thats how the bigger stuff gets done.

(Palaces (if located in Belgium ;) ) can then be used to found - lets say museums that hold exhibitions on the 'naturalistic appeal' of the native people in the Kongo, That gets peoples imagination going! Hey - how about a business expedition into the Kongo! With co-investment from whom? ;) (Historic example. Founding museums as a 'lighthouse project' - in an economic interest. (Back then driven by colonial interest.) )

If you fail, countries get a little more nationalistic - and there will be new wars, and depending on how you (or the main industries in a country) are invested, Both of those are horrible for your bottom line. Also for the world. (Overarching argument, wars would take the 'decade of opportunity to do something on climate chenge' away from that region.')

edit: Some of the philanthropic efforts also fall into that category. At least thats how the german government makes it sound, if it (and the UN) is looking for sponsors https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-humanitarian-aid-is-an-investment-in-the-future/a-55246553

They know why. But in the end, no one with 'f*ck you' money wants to be in philantropy for philantropiys sake. (Gates is a blueprint for pretty much no one else.. ;) )

edit: Follow up: https://www.dw.com/en/lack-of-polit...r-german-development-minister-says/a-55269493
 
Last edited by notimp,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
Since I don't really care about this thread, I'll say something that is partiality related. Vertical forests are pretty cool, when done right.
So are vertical axis windturbines, its just that they dont scale. :)

European forests are also pretty neat for a leisurely walk, its just that at least I try to look at the topic here with all romanticism removed.

The concept of being one with nature can be seen as an age old trope, that works on the subconscious level for many people, out of the box.

I'm much more interested in the implementation level. ;)

edit: Stuff like this:
We need you to be in the vanguard of making the changes we need.

I count on you to come to my climate summit prepared to inspire the world with your actions and your plans and influence your own Governments.

I hope the climate action summit will also help empower you to deliver on your plans, including through generating the finance you need.
Indeed, financing is critical.

That is why I have enlisted the President of France, the Prime Minister of Jamaica and the Emir of Qatar in a high-level political effort, in the run-up to the Climate Summit, to mobilize international support for the funding we need.

That means reaching the goal, determined in Paris, of $100 billion per year, from public and private sources in developed countries, to advance mitigation and adaptation in the developing world.
src: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg...enerals-remarks-the-r20-austrian-world-summit

PS: But I also like a good ... tree. As much as the next guy. ;)
 
Last edited by notimp,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
"There are good political reasons for Europe to maintain a certain European steel industry and make sure that it produces steel in a carbon efficient way," he (Ingo Schachel, head of equity research at Commerzbank) told DW. "Whether they find the right means to make it possible and to create market mechanisms that incentivize green European steel production — that could well be, but the next three to five years will be quite decisive."

They will likely be decisive for Thyssenkrupp too, whatever deal is done regarding its steel business. For the 27,000 workers still employed at its European steel operations, the best hopes for those eager to remain in steel production in the future are likely to be tied up in those possible green policies.
The EU is considering a carbon border tax that would impose charges on goods, such as steel, produced in countries with lower environmental standards. That could give a new birth of freedom to European steel producers, so long as they cement their status as leaders in so-called "green steel" production.

Yet in order for the old steel producers such as Thyssenkrupp to fit smoothly into this new era, they will likely have to make themselves much smaller in order to make the switch.
https://www.dw.com/en/thyssenkrupp-...ry-finds-itself-at-decisive-moment/a-55332804

Oh subsidies are a wonderful thing.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
Not sure why vertical forests wouldn't scale. I'm not saying every building is going to be one, but I can see more and more of them popping up.

I thought along those lines:
https://www.newgeography.com/content/001689-how-much-world-covered-cities

When it comes to carbon capture and storage, you hear about pumping CO2 into the ground (have to find sediments, where it doesnt easily leak out), which is not very cost effective, seeding fields and soil with minerals that lead to more carbon capture, and can be used as a fertilizing agent (has to be partly subsidized), link with detail should already be somewhere in here, algae farming (know too little about it, seems costly). Reforestation (issue, thats land thant cant be used for higher economic gains, which means this is a long term subsidies project, largely in third world economies. Reforestation projects and changing the properties of the top soil layer are projects that are already in place.

Issue on both is, that in todays economy they dont pay especially well. Which is also where the carbon border taxes come in.

The idea here is, because market prices arent taking carbon output into account you'd have government force that cost onto processes to build incentives for them to change. (This is largely what COP Paris was about.) If you do that as an economic union (/large country), you make your own industry less competitive in comparison with any other nation not engaged in 'some effort roughly equal to yours' which is where border taxes come in. Which would work wonderfully, if all bigger countries in the world would be pulling on the same rope so to speak (remaining nations would have to adopt), but with the US having moved entirely out of the trajectory of the Paris climate accord, this becomes an issue.

Mainly on how fast you can scale up carbon pricing. (Currently some parts of the US are engaged in efforts voluntarily, that will not cut it, once carbon price has to be scaled up (currently we are in the 'hike up efficiency and implement circular something something' phase, reduction phase (via harder means) would come after that. (Need smart grids, need changes in peoples behavior, need... alternative means of looking at economic growth.)

Most of the deciding factor on how we tackle the issue (where global climate can be stabilized) is said to take place in the next 20-30 years. Building entirely new cities, just isnt fast enough. :)

Also, with vertical gardens, afaik you are mostly talking about food production, or PR, which still would be less efficient than what we have today (industrial farming.. ;) ) so you run into another set of issues.. :) Also carbon would have to be stored longterm, for which whatever grows on your balconies, is not that efficient. ;) Also - far too little room on balconies, acreagewise, even if scaled upwards. :)

The idea mostly is to remodel economies in a way thats compatible with goals. (Then let markets find solutions on their own), issue is - that economically, you wont find that that enticing. (Oil is a very dense form of energy storage, at a very low price. On renewables you mostly have a 'sustained output' and transport issue. (Sustained output is needed for electric grids, otherwise they break down, transport issue (storage) means, that you loose energy as soon as you are transporting it. But looking at cost per unit of solar energy production, bigger electricity grids seem to be a way forward. US energy grid is ehm... yeah. Renew all of that first, before you renew cities.. ;) Whats coming into play in urban environments is retrofiting (making buildings more energy efficient) and finding alternatives to concrete (very high CO2 output in production). ))

See f.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
 
Last edited by notimp,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
German.

Presentation of a crosssectoral study on how to make Germany (/the EU) 'climate neutral' by 2050:


Short summery, methodical mix, so you can not stop it with activism or lobbying in a single segment. High reliance on electrical power, thats then generated via upsizing the renewable sector (solar most, off shore wind significantly, cross country wind - significantly), high reliance on creating greater efficiency. Which never the less leads to an increasing reliance on electrical power, because you'll now also use it for mobility. hydrogen only in cases where going electric is not an option (airtravel and shipping) to not have efficiency losses there. Reliance on fostering investments from the public sector through shifting subsidies, in both personal travel and heating. Limiting economic growth to 1.3% annual average. Airtravel is set at lowered Covid rates in the model. (So no 'recovery' for that industry.) Large investments in R&D to make technologies like electric mobility and long distance heating affordable for the public. Penalty payments for anything fossile fuel related, subsidies for the poor. (Via subsidies for electric energy, that would make it cheaper - but you need more of it (mobility).)

In terms of investment volume needed below 2°C climate goal trajectory is possible for germany.

No word on fallout from reduced productivity (when you shift subsidies, and move away from fossile fuels, which still are more interesting in terms of profit margin - at market prices), possible recession is glanced over.

In the minds of the people creating those models, the world is moving into an international investment and R&D race right about next year, and investments are needed for europe to have anything even halfway profitable 20 years from now (Europe has lost in the automotive sector (if we go electro mobility), in AI, in software services, in fast prototyping, in banking, in steel production, ...).

At least they've moved the 'individual behavior modificatioon' to the 'where marketable' level, and dont expect the german public to become largely vegan. Fucktards..

Next ten years will be raising efficiency and R&D investment, after that its raising efficiency goals so much, you are changing how your entire economy works.

edit: Ah yeah, every new car in germany would have to be an electric car by 2035. So that industry is practically gone.
edit. Oh yeah, and with the long term goal to run gas power plants (load balancing) on hydrogen, thats created as an energy storage medium (with high effciency losses - so you scale up renewables more). And carbon capture and storage for the parts you cant run on electricity or hydrogen.
 
Last edited by notimp,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
New conspiracy theory - from Stefan Rahmsdorf - fossile fuel industry invested in dark PR to popularize discussions about "personal footprint". BECAUSE PERSONAL REDUCTION THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER WORKED!

Well fuck no. That went different - initially... A-hole. And that way the historical lies for the future are born.
 
Last edited by notimp,

Captain_N

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
1,903
Trophies
2
XP
2,023
Country
United States
I wonder if these teens realize they are part of the problem. Buying all the mass produced tech just to toss it and buy it again in 3 months. Teens not having kids aint gonna do anything.
DO they realize that trees turn the co2 we produce into breathable air? co2 is not a pollutant and anyone that says it is, is a dumb ass. Everyone is breathing in co2 with the o2 we need to live. I bet they dont even know that in the past there was a greater co2 content present in the atmosphere then exist today and the planet was happy with that. Many plants and trees grew and life was flourishing.

They probably dont know anything about the research thats been going into fusion reactors that produce no co2. They talk about burning biofuel, but guess what, its still producing co2. The real solution to clean power generation is Nuclear Fusion.

I like to watch them talk about electric cars and i laugh. DO they realize that in the US 60% of power generation comes from fossil fuels. lol SO what do they think is charging their cars lol. Ant even worse is the batteries in those cars. That shit is toxic to the environment.

The amount of pollution we pump out is the real problem. The pollution has to stop. To many heavy metals from industrial run off poising the ground.
 

eyeliner

Has an itch needing to be scratched.
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
2,891
Trophies
2
Age
44
XP
5,535
Country
Portugal
I have never heard this argument. Rather, how proficient can she be at understanding the complexity of climate/weather systems at such a young age? The mathematics that describe these systems require a few years of college level math/modeling alone.
Temperatures up.
Water levels up.
Mass extinction.
Death.

Simple Math to me. I'm sure she can pull it of.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,420
Country
Laos
I wonder if these teens realize they are part of the problem. Buying all the mass produced tech just to toss it and buy it again in 3 months. Teens not having kids aint gonna do anything.
DO they realize that trees turn the co2 we produce into breathable air? co2 is not a pollutant and anyone that says it is, is a dumb ass. Everyone is breathing in co2 with the o2 we need to live. I bet they dont even know that in the past there was a greater co2 content present in the atmosphere then exist today and the planet was happy with that. Many plants and trees grew and life was flourishing.

They probably dont know anything about the research thats been going into fusion reactors that produce no co2. They talk about burning biofuel, but guess what, its still producing co2. The real solution to clean power generation is Nuclear Fusion.

I like to watch them talk about electric cars and i laugh. DO they realize that in the US 60% of power generation comes from fossil fuels. lol SO what do they think is charging their cars lol. Ant even worse is the batteries in those cars. That shit is toxic to the environment.

The amount of pollution we pump out is the real problem. The pollution has to stop. To many heavy metals from industrial run off poising the ground.
All, even put together not good enough as an argument. Sadly.. ;)

Biofuels dont scale. High energy (edit: and water) input, not that much output compared to the input. Not enough furtile fields for it to scale much larger. You use them where you cant use other forms of energy - in the renewable model. Apart from that, they dont matter.

Rare earth minerals for batteries is an issue, but you maybe can develop different materials for the cathode, eventually. Not short term. (Until then you foster the almost supernatural believe of creating a circular economy. ;) ) And yes, you are still talking strip mining, but here is where Michael Moore is naive, nothing in the sustainable sector is done because of 'wholesomeness' at this point, but basically because of -- a need, thats either societally accepted or not. But thats that.

Waiting for 'the miraculous solution' that will make all the problems go away, in terms of '(cold) fusion' isnt an option either. You hedge bets, you go with some of the options, that seem most promising. Also, you mostly go with your best option in terms of energy efficiency, and as of today thats solar. (Issue then is storage and transport. Where you lose significant parts of the actual energy created.) Oh, and going with solar you loose pretty much all value add. Factories in germany are now reopened because quote 'its cheaper, than transporting that stuff manufactured from china - if we go full automation'.

And even if you had fusion reactors, you dont have them in cars. :)

CO2 is not a problem, because trees breath it, sadly is not exactly the situation here either.. ;) Too much salt can kill you. Too much global warming can make large regions of the world uninhabitable. If you simply ignore that - you are evil. ;)

Making 'not having children' a trend, is a fad. The way I've perceived that being popularized for a hot week in the german debate, was that a looney was featured by mainstream press for said hot week, to sensibilize people towards certain 'life designs' (life decisions). It was always low tier understandable - that that person (wrote a booka bout why she is morally superior, doing that) was slightly looney (not the norm). So in essence, this is not a lesson you draw from this in terms of 'what could be done', its just a lesson in terms of - when to nod your head an say nothing, when your opponent engages in 'convincing themselves, they dont have kids for the planet in 200 years'. ;)

Oh, and a comment on the kids. They are playing low tier revolution (as at that age kids should (question everything) - strife for higher moral goals, ...), but the entire organisation part this time arround is the opposite of naive. ;) But then - neither were youth trends (like the emo movement ;) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emo_artists )) in the past, I guess.. ;) (Most youth cultures are actually manufactured. (At least in the music industry.. ;) ).Or look at 'professional gaming' - its similar there as well.. ;) )


I'm still flipping on mass manipulation (behavioral modification), which in all models was written in as 'buffer that could actually be significant (needed), so as a 'simple thing to change' (conceptually, everyone and their mother in the field where engaged in collective behavioral management - which was seen as a large part of the solution, right until the point where people realized how effective Covid lockdowns were in terms of o CO2 output reduction. (Not that much.) And exprapolated, what would happen, if they push it more, maybe even during the next recession in their countries. Now all of a sudden it was never the actual goal. The goal was to create a political movement that would influence policy making.

Effectively - both were true.
 
Last edited by notimp,

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    Veho @ Veho: Cool.