Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Space_Time, Sep 23, 2019.
She got her fifteen minutes, already.
Whatever the photo says, and if it is proven not to be doctored, any speculation of any sort is just that. SPECULATION!
Do we not ALL understand what is happening on the Internet nowadays with some very effective means for manipulating digital-photos.
Or are we simply evolving from the dark-ages when ONLY a negative could identify the positive-veracity of a photo.
I'll go for the latter (in the US) - lap it up ... !
I know that the subject and this thread are pretty much dead now but I just had a realization. Greta Thunberg's "How Dare You!" tantrum is disgusting and I feel ill every time I watch it but there was something familiar about it and I just this second realized what it is. This (three years ago) must be Greta Thunberg's inspiration:
She is young. Naivete goes with the territory.
Twitter is for twits! Which is why Donald Dork employs it is so often.
It shows well the current mentality in the US by which thought is conveyed in short, one-liner sentences. As on this forum.
The public has long since lost the notion of public-debate being just that - a "DEBATE" - that is,
The Brazilian president is NO ONE to be calling someone else a brat. He should look in a mirror!
Deforestation IS happening in Brazil, and it is not to plant crops. It is to find mineral-wealth ... !
The world does not run on idealism and wishful thinking.
So, it runs on what? Without a need for better, mankind has no future. And, we know that's true because WE ARE the future of times past.
You may be satisfied with it, but as an economist, I am decidedly not. We can and should do better in terms of Income Fairness.
It took Rome fie centuries to close-the-books. I figure we'll do it in half that time if we are not careful.
And for the very same reason. Too much wealth going to the top. When the Germans arrived, they literally waltzed into Rome.
The Romans (spoiled rotten) hadn't either the means or the will to defend it ...
NB: History repeats itself. Always differently ...
The world runs on reality and cynicism. It cannot operate in terms of what individuals believe should be the case, only in what is the case.
There are times and situations when failure is the only available option. In the real world there are problems for which there are no solutions. Not simply no easy solutions, but rather no solutions whatsoever.
Species come. Species go. The human race is no different. Eventually it will come to an end, just as countless species before it have done. It is the natural order of things. The only one and true difference, is the human species is the only species that has dedicated its entirely existence to the sole purpose of ending its own existence.
Inaccurate statement: Homo sapiens, alone among creatures, evolved a conscious "thinking" mind (cerebral cortex), allowing action beyond instinct. The possibility to master the universe is there.
No, humans built the great cathedrals in the middle ages because they have a vision of immortality ("God").
And they can build the GLOBAL infrastructure required to transition from filthy fossil to clean green - called the 3rd industrial revolution by Jeremy Rifkin in his new book "The Green New Deal".
Jeremy Rifkin (in his new book: "The Green New Deal) speaks of the likelihood of $100 trillion in stranded fossil industry assets by 2028, when technological advances will mean base load green energy becomes cheaper than base load fossil.
I note you regard the climate change/CO2 issue as nonsense (despite a scientific consensus to the contrary); whereas I would be happy to proceed - asap - AS IF IT WERE TRUE; if only because of the environmental contamination problems you correctly outline above.
So the real objections of Conservatives arise ie how do we pay for the new green infrastructure, how do we deal with fossil industry job losses during the transition, and how do we compensate for the stranded fossil industry assets without bankrupting the global financial system.
Poor Greta's problem is she doesn't have any advisers telling her how these problems can be solved, *without creating winners and losers".
Hence we have the reactionary Canadian oil-worker rally noted above.
Facts are not established by votes, that is hand-waving, claims are measured against the natural world to see if they hold water or not. The constant appeal to "consensus" rather than testing against the natural world kind of gives away the game.
The real objections of Constitutional Conservatives is the attempt to force the theories of a crazed apocalyptic cult on us via the power of government.
If it's better than existing energy sources, it will prove itself, just as fracking did.
That's the beauty of the Free Market, these are private assets, if they guessed wrong, or someone comes along with a more efficient way to produce energy, then these "stranded" assets go to auction and are worth whatever the highest bidder will pay for them.
The financial system will be benefiting from the more efficent energy production means that replaced the less efficient one.
Poor Greta's problem is that the adults around her are exploiting her.
It’s Disgusting What the Climate Panic Brigade Is Doing to Greta Thunberg.
The Swedish teenager is not some science prodigy who graduated young from an Ivy League school with an advanced agree in physics or anything like that. Rather, the daughter (and granddaughter) of famous actors and opera singers suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and selective mutism. I’m no medical professional, but these things might have been brought on when (according to public sources), starting at the age of eight, Thunberg was subjected to such a barrage of climate panic that she eventually became depressed and lethargic, and also developed an eating disorder.
Now Thunberg is paraded around the globe as the voice of sanity on climate change.
May God have mercy on them.
Which is your opinion, and nothing more. Opinions are at the heart of this forum.
There are ALWAYS solutions when smart people gather together and negotiate solutions. It usually works well-enough amongst intelligent people of the human species - and the opposite is also true. Amongst the ignorant and uneducated it very rarely works in matters of considerable consequence.
When that happen in any society, then social-structure goes awry. Nazism was the last on record to have thus started a World War. Communism, the futile rebuttal to Nazism, also went its way for the very same reason. It just didn't work because it proved itself economically unsuitable to human needs.
Far too dire a prediction. This last edition of the human species has considerable intelligence. It adapts to circumstances, and when it cannot adapt (for a variety of reasons) it just moves on - some of its components simply fade-away into non-existence.
Indeed, this version of the human-species is much smarter than other past versions, but as a whole our present variety of the human-species is doing as well as can be expected. The arms of nuclear destruction have spread around into far too many countries, but - for the moment - it has not produced any massive destruction since first employed to end WW2.
And unless there is a physical collisional-calamity arriving from outer-space, our species will be around for millions of years hence. Perhaps largely on other planets, however - which is mankind's next step into the future of the human race ...
Meaning what? (Perhaps I have been watching too much of the Star-Wars series?)
Meaning instead of discussing the virtues and calamities of any given culture/politic, the human race simply set outs to elsewhere and refounds itself. Just as the English-variety did in the US two centuries ago. But must still correct its electoral formula - which is formally called "evolution of the species" ...
Hmmm…..that's why I stay away from the CO2 debate, at least until the sea level starts rising in a manner that can only be explained by rising CO2 emissions (compared with previous inter ice age cycles).
Interestingly, Jeremy Rifkin in his new book "Green New Deal" proposes staying away from the 'big government' debate, by imposing a carbon tax on the big emitters, and increasing it until the "invisible hand" market achieves the desired reduction in CO2 emissions, and returning the proceeds (presumably after the transition costs borne by the fossil industry have been met - Rifkin doesn't make that clear) to consumers to compensate them for higher energy prices during the transition.
But I'm guessing you will reject that also......
And Conservatives certainly always appeal to the "how will we pay for it" meme.
Are you OK with the contamination of underground water by fracking processes that has apparently occurred in several locations?
Worth the value of the scrap? What about the $trillions tied up in pension funds?
The weakness of the Free Market, in the absence of public intervention, is it's occasional spectacular failure...most recently in the GFC, following ill-judged financial deregulation.
And of course if climate change -CO2 IS shown to be real, the Free Market will be totally inadequate to deal with the situation
In this case you are confusing efficiency with sustainability; filthy fossil is unsustainable, regardless of efficiency.
because these adults believe climate change related to CO2 emissions is real.
What if it is real? Are you sure your "big government " anathema is not clouding your judgement?
Given my reservations about the Free Market ALONE, I would rather get on with the business of transitioning from filthy fossil to clean green, ASAP, with a planned utilisation/development of the necessary resources, not according to an "invisible hand" time table, with no concern for environmental sustainability, but via government making it happen.
Yes it will be BIG government on a global scale. Sorry.....
[You might study MMT for an explanation of how we can have the best of both worlds, ie, public sector policy-directed planning, and private sector "invisible hand" efficiency].
Separate names with a comma.