What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action (2 Viewers)

timschochet said:
Her speech was great but it also depresses me because we’re not going to do anything close to what she is demanding. We’re not capable of it. 
Click to expand...
Her fervor is admirable. I'm not sure why she just casts aside "technical solutions" like it's impossible forevermore that they'd ever have a place in mitigating CO2 emmisions. I am convinced that the eventual way out of the worst effects of climate change will come from engineering and technology, and not from fundamental social change.

Short version: Cars, planes, plastic, and HVAC aren't going anywhere -- they'll just "suddenly" (and from the perspective of 2019, "magically") become orders of magnitude cleaner.

 
sho nuff said:
How about articulate a point about what she had to say and about what others here are actually saying rather than just criticism about posters and her?
Click to expand...
I've made my points about climate change in threads.   My post was about her.  And I was very offended by her thinking she had the ok to lecture us like that.  My opinion.   It's OK if I have an opinion right?

 
The question is how to we get the young people of China and India to get on board to hold protests and marches as well? But in reality China is the key player in this and this will be a most difficult task.

China's emissions passed those of the U.S. in 2005, and by 2012 had surpassed the combined contribution of both the U.S. and the EU.  China will be responsible for the most atmospheric carbon dioxide in less than 20 years.

China has regional company as well. The Asia Pacific region is home to both China and India -- the world's two most populous countries and the two largest carbon dioxide emitters. It is also home to other fast-growing and/or populous countries, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Japan. Over the past decade, this region's carbon dioxide emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 3.1% , which was nearly triple the global average. As a result, Asia Pacific is now responsible for well over 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

 
supermike80 said:
I've made my points about climate change in threads.   My post was about her.  And I was very offended by her thinking she had the ok to lecture us like that.  My opinion.   It's OK if I have an opinion right?
Click to expand...
Sure and its ok for people to criticize that (as it should be criticized...offended by truth?)...and you seem to be pissed that others are giving theor opinions and mocking them with the bogus claims of “getting news from a 16 year old girl” stuff.  

She dod have to lecture like that...because the points don't sink in...no matter how true.

 
sho nuff said:
Sure and its ok for people to criticize that (as it should be criticized...offended by truth?)...and you seem to be pissed that others are giving theor opinions and mocking them with the bogus claims of “getting news from a 16 year old girl” stuff.  

She dod have to lecture like that...because the points don't sink in...no matter how true.
Click to expand...
You feeel that way, good for you[---if you feel that you deserve to be lectured by a child, thats perfectly OK.  I however don't.  And I am offended by it.

 
Doug B said:
With ~2.7 billion people. That's a lot of inertia, and points to why technical solutions will have to come to the fore.
Click to expand...
Their agreements are to slow down their massive growth rates.  The rest of the world is fairly limited in how much they can pull back in comparison.  It’s really up to India and China.

I don’t see them slamming the brakes on their economic growth to make the EU and US happy though.  Especially considering we have already transformed our economies.

 
Da Guru said:
Ok..I am just repeating what a scientist said.   USA trending down, China-India trending  up.  Having been to China for work a few times I am pretty sure most of the general population have zero thoughts on climate change.
Click to expand...
Did the scientist also mention that China's investments in renewable energy dwarfs that of the US? 

Or did he leave that out? 

Because it seems relevant...

 
Doug B said:
Her fervor is admirable. I'm not sure why she just casts aside "technical solutions" like it's impossible forevermore that they'd ever have a place in mitigating CO2 emmisions. I am convinced that the eventual way out of the worst effects of climate change will come from engineering and technology, and not from fundamental social change.

Short version: Cars, planes, plastic, and HVAC aren't going anywhere -- they'll just "suddenly" (and from the perspective of 2019, "magically") become orders of magnitude cleaner.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is a point where her age/experience belies her, I think.

 
msommer said:
Did the scientist also mention that China's investments in renewable energy dwarfs that of the US? 

Or did he leave that out? 

Because it seems relevant...
Click to expand...
Does seem relevant but no, he was talking about the state of the worlds emissions in the past decade and looking toward the future decade. The whole point he was making is that the USA-EU has little control unless China-India adjust.

 
I am not at all upset at Greta Thunberg. I believe she is earnest and is trying to do something positive.

My question is, though ... what prevents her from being ignored in the immediate term? OK, she chastised a bunch of "men in suits" at the U.N. And then? Are they not totally and completely free to ignore her words going forward? What is the specific constraint Thunberg is attempting to place on those she spoke against?

Is it the kind of thing that's perhaps best treated as a very, very faint spark that grows brighter as the decades pass? Until finally, in the 2200s or something, people can look back at Thunberg speaking to the U.N. and say "The idea ignited HERE, with Greta Thunberg. It took 150 years to ultimately burn its brightest ... but burn it did."

 
Da Guru said:
Does seem relevant but no, he was talking about the state of the worlds emissions in the past decade and looking toward the future decade. The whole point he was making is that the USA-EU has little control unless China-India adjust.
Click to expand...
It’s not so much adjust as it is massively slow their economic growth.  According to scientists we are well beyond adjusting.

 
Sweet J said:
"YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE DUMMY; GET A HOSE."

-- "I prefer not to be lectured." 
Click to expand...
What's different is that the "men in suits" -- Thunberg's audience -- cannot look over their shoulders and observe the fire at hand. It's very difficult to sell climate change as the same kind of personally immediate emergency as a house fire.

 
Doug B said:
I am not at all upset at Greta Thunberg. I believe she is earnest and is trying to do something positive.

My question is, though ... what prevents her from being ignored in the immediate term? OK, she chastised a bunch of "men in suits" at the U.N. And then? Are they not totally and completely free to ignore her words going forward? What is the specific constraint Thunberg is attempting to place on those she spoke against?

Is it the kind of thing that's perhaps best treated as a very, very faint spark that grows brighter as the decades pass? Until finally, in the 2200s or something, people can look back at Thunberg speaking to the U.N. and say "The idea ignited HERE, with Greta Thunberg. It took 150 years to ultimately burn its brightest ... but burn it did."
Click to expand...
:shrug:

It’s not like this is a new thing.  She seems like a good kid, but she is also completely irrelevant in the grand scheme.

 
supermike80 said:
I've made my points about climate change in threads.   My post was about her.  And I was very offended by her thinking she had the ok to lecture us like that.  My opinion.   It's OK if I have an opinion right?
Click to expand...
Countless other people have tried to lecture you about climate change, what is it about Greta that offends you?

 
Doug B said:
I am not at all upset at Greta Thunberg. I believe she is earnest and is trying to do something positive.

My question is, though ... what prevents her from being ignored in the immediate term? OK, she chastised a bunch of "men in suits" at the U.N. And then? Are they not totally and completely free to ignore her words going forward? What is the specific constraint Thunberg is attempting to place on those she spoke against?

Is it the kind of thing that's perhaps best treated as a very, very faint spark that grows brighter as the decades pass? Until finally, in the 2200s or something, people can look back at Thunberg speaking to the U.N. and say "The idea ignited HERE, with Greta Thunberg. It took 150 years to ultimately burn its brightest ... but burn it did."
Click to expand...
"And now, in our underwater cities powered by human waste, we rejoice in her ideas which, obviously, were followed far too late."

 
supermike80 said:
You feeel that way, good for you[---if you feel that you deserve to be lectured by a child, thats perfectly OK.  I however don't.  And I am offended by it.
Click to expand...
Imagine how offended you'll be in a couple generations when you're referred to as one of the people who was offended by people telling you anthropogenic climate change is real.

 
Henry Ford said:
"And now, in our underwater cities powered by human waste, we rejoice in her ideas which, obviously, were followed far too late."
Click to expand...
Well ... maybe? Not sure even the very brightest minds of the mid-1800s could even envision more than a hint of the world of 2019. Point being ... our flashlight doesn't extend very far into the future.

Besides -- what's the near-term alternative. Wouldn't all 2019 humans have to pretty much immediately revert back to pre-industrial technology, all at once, to have much of an effect on anything? I exaggerate to make a point -- just not seeing the vanguard of those determined to live without modern convenience. I may assume that Thunberg did not cross the Atlantic on a replica of the Kon-Tiki (and no, she shouldn't have been expected to)?

 
supermike80 said:
You feeel that way, good for you[---if you feel that you deserve to be lectured by a child, thats perfectly OK.  I however don't.  And I am offended by it.
Click to expand...
Do you disagree with the message or just the form the messenger took?  I don't recall you lashing out at the science community like this.  Seems odd :oldunsure:  

 
Doug B said:
Well ... maybe? Not sure even the very brightest minds of the mid-1800s could even envision more than a hint of the world of 2019. Point being ... our flashlight doesn't extend very far into the future.

Besides -- what's the near-term alternative. Wouldn't all 2019 humans have to pretty much immediately revert back to pre-industrial technology, all at once, to have much of an effect on anything? I exaggerate to make a point -- just not seeing the vanguard of those determined to live without modern convenience. I may assume that Thunberg did not cross the Atlantic on a replica of the Kon-Tiki (and no, she shouldn't have been expected to)?
Click to expand...
There is plenty we could do. 

not let the Amazon burn.  That would be nice. 

mandate better fuel efficiency for automobiles.  Hey I like that. 

Put REAL effort/money into solar energy.  

 
Apple Jack said:
I've made my points about climate change in threads.   My post was about her.  And I was very offended by her thinking she had the ok to lecture us like that.  My opinion.   It's OK if I have an opinion right?
Click to expand...
Wait... You were offended because a 16 year old girl raised her voice?

O-M-G  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 
Doug B said:
Well ... maybe? Not sure even the very brightest minds of the mid-1800s could even envision more than a hint of the world of 2019. Point being ... our flashlight doesn't extend very far into the future.

Besides -- what's the near-term alternative. Wouldn't all 2019 humans have to pretty much immediately revert back to pre-industrial technology, all at once, to have much of an effect on anything? I exaggerate to make a point -- just not seeing the vanguard of those determined to live without modern convenience. I may assume that Thunberg did not cross the Atlantic on a replica of the Kon-Tiki (and no, she shouldn't have been expected to)?
Click to expand...
Nope.  

Some in this thread have been down on her statement about technology - but she's not saying we have to abandon that avenue.  The idea is to slow everything down long enough for the people who will make the huge advances necessary (in her generation) to have time to do it.  When we can do that,  we should.  She explained that this can't be done with technologies that barely exist, and that existing models assume that her generation will find a way to clean things up.  Her generation doesn't have the careers to do that yet.

And Thunberg used a sailboat.

 
Sweet J said:
There is plenty we could do. 

not let the Amazon burn.  That would be nice. 

mandate better fuel efficiency for automobiles.  Hey I like that. 

Put REAL effort/money into solar energy.  
Click to expand...
Also carbon taxes and reinvestment in nuclear.  (Our steadfast refusal to build nuclear plants is like moving technology backwards, exactly the opposite of what Doug B is talking about).

 
Sweet J said:
There is plenty we could do. 

not let the Amazon burn.  That would be nice. 

mandate better fuel efficiency for automobiles.  Hey I like that. 

Put REAL effort/money into solar energy.  
Click to expand...
So far as I'm aware, both of the items in red have been initiated in earnest and can expect to gain in efficiency as time passes. My current vehicle is a good 50% more fuel efficient that a similarly-functional vehicle 25 years ago. And probably 20% of the homes in our immediate area of suburbia have solar panels installed -- up from zero 8-10 years ago.

...

While I have read that there is/was a major fire in the Amazon ... I am ignorant of the specifics. How it started (purposefully, through negligence, naturally, something else, etc.), how it's being fought, and what feasible measures can be taken.

...

So ... OK. Even with the measures you've mentioned, that's probably not 1% or 1% of enough to make a dent, correct?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Also carbon taxes and reinvestment in nuclear.  (Our steadfast refusal to build nuclear plants is like moving technology backwards, exactly the opposite of what Doug B is talking about).
Click to expand...
If we can figure out a real solution regarding waste... but we've got massive amounts of it already and it's already a big issue.

 
Doug B said:
So far as I'm aware, both of the items in red have been initiated in earnest and can expect to gain in efficiency as time passes. My current vehicle is a good 50% more fuel efficient that a similarly-functional vehicle 25 years ago. And probably 20% of the homes in our immediate area of suburbia have solar panels installed -- up from zero 8-10 years ago.

...

While I have read that there is/was a major fire in the Amazon ... I am ignorant of the specifics. How it started (purposefully, through negligence, naturally, something else, etc.), how it's being fought, and what feasible measures can be taken.

...

So ... OK. Even with the measures you've mentioned, that's probably not 1% or 1% of enough to make a dent, correct?
Click to expand...


Except this administration rolled back fuel efficiency standards two years ago.

 
Doug B said:
So ... OK. Even with the measures you've mentioned, that's probably not 1% or 1% of enough to make a dent, correct?
Click to expand...
It isnt wise to look at these things in isolation. Me recycling doesn't do anything to help our trash problem. Collectively it sure does though. 

And this is part of the problem and the point of her whole speech. Throwing your hands up and saying it's too hard, or it's too late, is unacceptable. It is neither of those things (hopefully)

 
Da Guru said:
The question is how to we get the young people of China and India to get on board to hold protests and marches as well? But in reality China is the key player in this and this will be a most difficult task.

China's emissions passed those of the U.S. in 2005, and by 2012 had surpassed the combined contribution of both the U.S. and the EU.  China will be responsible for the most atmospheric carbon dioxide in less than 20 years.

China has regional company as well. The Asia Pacific region is home to both China and India -- the world's two most populous countries and the two largest carbon dioxide emitters. It is also home to other fast-growing and/or populous countries, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Japan. Over the past decade, this region's carbon dioxide emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 3.1% , which was nearly triple the global average. As a result, Asia Pacific is now responsible for well over 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Click to expand...
If only we could have created some kind of agreement governing commerce which included binding controls on the ecological impacts of doing business (as well as standards for compensation and treatment of laborers). Admittedly such an agreement is nearly beyond human comprehension...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dawgtrails said:
It isnt wise to look at these things in isolation. Me recycling doesn't do anything to help our trash problem. Collectively it sure does though. 

And this is part of the problem and the point of her whole speech. Throwing your hands up and saying it's too hard, or it's too late, is unacceptable. It is neither of those things (hopefully)
Click to expand...
And to piggyback on this, car and truck emissions are about 20% of all U.S. carbon emissions.  You double fuel efficiency, you cut those emissions in half.  That's 10% of our emissions right off the top.

 
Henry Ford said:
If we can figure out a real solution regarding waste... but we've got massive amounts of it already and it's already a big issue.
Click to expand...
No it's not -- you bury it underground.  If you can't solve the NIMBY problem with that one, then all of this is hopeless anyway because all other coordination problems associated with climate change pale in comparison.  This is one of the easy ones.

 
Gr00vus said:
If only we could have created some kind of agreement governing commerce which included binding controls on the ecological impacts of doing business (as well as standards for compensation and treatment of laborers). Admittedly such an agreement is nearly beyond human comprehension...
Click to expand...
I agree, having been to China and India a few times it does seem to be beyond human comprehension. India has more of a chance given the people are a little more aware but China will take decades if ever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
I agree, having been to China and India a few times it seem to be beyond human comprehension. India has more of a chance given the people are a little more aware but China will take decades if ever.
Click to expand...
If the deal was right, China would make it happen.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
No it's not -- you bury it underground.  If you can't solve the NIMBY problem with that one, then all of this is hopeless anyway because all other coordination problems associated with climate change pale in comparison.  This is one of the easy ones.
Click to expand...
This is a massive oversimplification.  Also, there's a finite amount of "underground" where you can bury material you don't want other people to get their hands on.  Our current facilities are thousands and thousands of acres and regularly have problems with accidental contaminant release.

 
Gr00vus said:
If the deal was right, China would make it happen.
Click to expand...
if China gov't said, "no more C02 emissions", it would be done within a matter of a few years.  Centrally planned economies can respond quickly like that - no lobbyists, no industry trade orginizations, etc.  Just a bunch of rich men looking to make themselves richer.  When they are ready to flip the switch, it will get turned around fast.

 
supermike80 said:
You feeel that way, good for you[---if you feel that you deserve to be lectured by a child, thats perfectly OK.  I however don't.  And I am offended by it.
Click to expand...
We all deserve to be lectured no matter how old the one doing the lecturing is...especially when they are right.

And i could not possibly care less if she offended you.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Republican legislators are threatening to punish corporations that are trying to fight climate change.
Replies
7
Views
887
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
3K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
Stealthycat
Biden climate change order to tell federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies
2 3 4
Replies
173
Views
8K
joffer
joffer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top