Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

[notimp]

Oh look, elites have rediscovered the nation as a concept!
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...alization-sovereignty-by-mark-leonard-2020-04

Refreshing!

(Who is Mark Leonard? (Look it up.))

The tools prposed are the same as always though. 'Europe of regions', religious motivation of the populous using the 200 year goal of climate ('we are better'), and 'diplomacy, not war'.

Same as it ever was. Now with more nationalism.

 

[notimp]

I'm actively monitoring the conspiracy theory angle of - 'use covid crisis for climate action' if you want to know.

Ah, there it is!

Binoche, Blanchett, De Niro & Many More Say “No To A Return To Normal” In Coronavirus Wake, Urge Action To “Avoid Ecological Disaster”

https://deadline.com/2020/05/binoch...earth-life-extinction-coronavirus-1202927176/

see also:
https://www.ladepeche.fr/2020/04/19/idee-de-lecture-pour-le-confinement,8853186.php

And there it was 2018:
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...ites-pour-sauver-la-planete_5349380_3232.html

Lets just say I'm not worried about climate activism gaining the upper hand here anymore.

 

[notimp]

Short look at the catholic churches standpoint
(Faith based investors. )

Religion meets religion
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world...europe-day-united-solidary-schuman-union.html
(Nothing new.. Internationalism, humility, solidarity.)

20 Jesuit provinces urge for more radical social change and climate action after the crisis:
https://www.vaticannews.va/de/kirch...irus-krise-wandel-solidaritaet-appell-eu.html (german)

But thats 'only' the Jesuits.

 

[notimp]

Circular economy and SDGs interests debate:


Synopsis:

India: We've don jack sh*t, Industrial producers pay for waste management, thats it.

Operational level: We have no funding. We need more simple. We might have funding actually (because of OECD guidelines, that have been picked up by the private sector), but we cant enforce.

Christian NGO: We make reports. Corporate producers should pay. Because morals. First priority: Reduction. Apart from that, we also make clipart:

Spoiler

- to make it more personable. We talk with PR departments of polluters. They then make commitments. We fund surveys resorting to leading questions.

Then Q&A time.

I'd say the world is saved then, yes? If anyone has the need to hear more of this, there is an entire conference series online on that topic on the same channel:

 

[weatMod]

And to think this whole time, I thought it was due to the Earth's tilt that causes more/less sun to shine on different sections of the planet.

it's due to the solar cycle
we are in a grand solar minimum , a new maunder minimum probably
it's snowing here in and it's almost mid may

 

[notimp]

it's due to the solar cycle
we are in a grand solar minimum , a new maunder minimum probably
it's snowing here in and it's almost mid may

Here is that theory debunked:
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/...cle-north-atlantic-winter-weather-connection/

Stop listening to radio shock jocks, or your drinking pals on that.

edit: Here it is debunked with graphs from NASA, if thats more convincing to you:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

see also:

According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

 

[Waygeek]

lmfao he is clearly just googling "[thing he doesn't want to be true] false"

NASA disagrees with 'The Earth Institute' (flat earth no doubt), who would have thought.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-cycles/en/ And it's presented in lots of colourful pictures so you might be able to understand it notimp!

 

[notimp]

I will mount a public campaign to get you banned for personal attacking people at one point. Just so you see it coming.


- First, I dont doubt climate change.
- Second, I dont deny that it is man made
- Third, you are right back at trying to ridicule people
- Fourth, and I dont even know if its me this time - because none of your post is congruent.
- Fifth, posting - a link to something largely unrelated, without saying what you intend with it (what is your point?), doenst help that either.
- Sixth, reading what you linked to - the main point of that article seems to be, that solar circles can destroy satellites, which is great and all, but what does it do in this thread? Why did you post it?
- Seventh, because I read the sources I posted, I know, that both of them make the point, that solar cycles are an order of magnitude too small to explain anything related to global warming.

And finally, just for good measure - ridiculing someone that doesnt know that so far, doesnt help. Them, you, or the argument.

 

[Waygeek]

I will mount a public campaign to get you banned for personal attacking people at one point. Just so you see it coming.

lol should be your best meltdown and walls of text yet. It won't work of course, I will always be here to prove your lies wrong You are lying, and people proving you wrong is not 'personal attacks' no matter how much you want to play the victim.

 

[notimp]

Billionaires buying social change:

 

[spotanjo3]

Well...

1. I know that it is definintely climate change.
2. I always knew that it is man made. 100 percent.
3. It is not going to resolve anything even when they are going to have electric cars and reduce pollution on anything else. It is not going to change at all. it will slow down but it will keep getting worse. Just slower.
4. The corruption, hatred, famine, money, power, and many more are here to stay thanks to some coward human being until one day.

 

[notimp]

It is not going to resolve anything even when they are going to have electric cars and reduce pollution on anything else. It is not going to change at all. it will slow down but it will keep getting worse. Just slower.

Slower is more manageable, faster might not be without massive disruptive events (wars, hail marry attempts at engineering 'local' climate (some nations might not be so good at that, causing bigger problems...)...).

Thats pretty much the finer point. How many protesters you get through religious motivation, how many through playing people emotionally, how many through rational argument, how many through proclaiming new societal defaults, all that is still 'argued out' in public. In our daily lives.

 

[spotanjo3]

Slower is more manageable, faster might not be without massive disruptive events (wars, hail marry attempts at engineering 'local' climate (some nations might not be so good at that, causing bigger problems...)...).

Thats pretty much the finer point. How many protesters you get through religious motivation, how many through playing people emotionally, how many through rational argument, how many through proclaiming new societal defaults, all that is still 'argued out' in public. In our daily lives.

Yeah, indeed.

 

[notimp]

Wheee!

Is it true that mainstream enviros have oversold renewables? Yes. They have portrayed the transition away from fossil fuels as mostly a political problem; the implication in many of their communications is that, if we somehow come up with the money and the political will, we can replace oil with solar and continue living much as we do today, though with a clear climate conscience. That’s an illusion that deserves shattering.

(Just another informed opinion on the Michael Moore produced movie from those guys (Richard Heinberg and David Fridley): https://www.postcarbon.org/presenta...es-in-the-transition-to-100-renewable-energy/ (Watch the vimeo video on the site.) )

src: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-04-27/review-planet-of-the-humans/

 

[wonkeytonk]

I think people should refuse to have kids for many reasons!

 

[notimp]

I think people should refuse to have kids for many reasons!

While factually true, this is not something you could sell to societies at large. Its one of the basic definitions of 'antisocial' (stop to reproduce, even by some percentage, means society and culture die ) If it comes to those sort of deliberations, people will rebel before you can make them.

Also - one child policy, in china was implemented to curb population growth, which is one of the prefaces so you can become 'richer' as a society. (Basically allows for more complex value generation chains. As societies become more stable.) And it came at a price.

Europes population already is declining.

US population also, although at a slower rate.

So in the end - with this argument you are basically telling the developing world, to freeze their societies exactly at the current level - because they can not make the gap jumping from cheap labor (large populations) towards more advanced societies. If they dont have cheap labor to attract investment, what else do they have?
(Many of them are pre China jumping off point to a developed nation (= when china got interested in stable population levels).)

Also they might need many children in support systems, when people grow old (f.e. because their political system is not so stable or corrupt - so they have no working pension system), or they might need that in their culture, because child mortality in the first 3 years of a childs life is much higher, so they can not 'bank' on only getting one child..
--

So talking about this as part of a solution is useless. Both in the west, and in the developing world.

Because you absolutely need 'voluntary participation' on part of people. Basically for them to see this thing not as a 'ruse' by some rich guys against their future perspectives.

Which is why I'm so puzzled, that currently everything is religion, child saints, and marketing lies. Mostly..

Wars should be more likely than campaigns that would tell people to get less children..

 

[Seliph]

Climate Change is real and anyone who denies it is ignorant or they financially benefit from it (ExxonMobil).

-thread

 

[notimp]

Climate Change is real and anyone who denies it is ignorant or they financially benefit from it (ExxonMobil).

-thread

But with the main problem being, that we all profit from it much more, than the "mainstream enviros" would like people to think currently.

Its not just subsidies and 'corrupt politicians' that the climate movement would have to fight. Its peoples life perspectives. Dreams. Behaviors. (Consumption based economic models.)

Because people dont like to click through - I'll actually post the video mentioned above once more in here:


If you just break it down to the one sentence you posted, you skipped the most important part. Yes, big oil knew it much earlier, yes they suppressed the studies, yes they funded marketing campaigns to convince people that they should not think too much about it. But thats all beside the point - at this stage.

Main point imho is: Religions being used to behaviorally modify people to find 'less of what they have' 'just dandy'. And thats not even the main problem here - the main problem with this is reduced social fluidity. Ups.

So the chain to become successful in life - even currently goes through, get brainwashed by interests that tell you, if you are good at convincing other people to reduce consumption, they might give you money - so you can become something in life.. (This skill, is currently in demand. )

Alternatively - sectoral growth that should only last for about 10 years, in all kinds of different sectors, nothing longterm, nothing sustained - because we cant afford that (in anything other than climate 'tech').

Alternatively - managing decline. For the less talented..

You'll get it. Eventually.

 

[XDel]

Maybe if we all wish a better world into being, it will just happen?!? Happy thoughts, happy thoughts!

 

[Seliph]

But with the main problem being, that we all profit from it much more, than the "mainstream enviros" would like people to think currently.

Its not just subsidies and 'corrupt politicians' that the climate movement would have to fight. Its peoples live perspectives. Dreams. Behaviors.

Because people dont like to click through - I'll actually post the video mentioned above once more in here:


If you just break it down to the one sentence you posted, you skipped the most important part. Yes, big oil knew it much earlier, yes they suppressed the studies, yes they funded marketing campaigns to convince people it that they should not think too much about it. But thats all beside the point.

Main point imho is: Religions being used to behaviorally modify people to find 'less of what they have' 'just dandy'. And thats not even the main problem here - the main problem with this is reduced social fluidity. Ups.

So the chain to become successful in life - even currently goes through, get brainwashed by interests that tell you, if you are good at convincing other people to reduce consumption, they might give you money - so you can become something in life..

Alternatively - sectoral growth should only last for about 10 years, in all kinds of different sectors, nothing longterm, nothing sustained - because we cant afford that (in anything other than climate 'tech').

Alternatively - managing decline. For the less talented..

You'll get it. Eventually.

Right, that's why I said anyone that denies it is ignorant. You've just elaborated on my point. I just didn't care enough to elaborate myself because I think it's pointless to actually argue with climate change deniers.