COP26

[Mick Dempsey]

42 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

The problem, if we accept the "consensus" view as correct, is this: All economic activity, generates CO2. Even so called green jobs, generate C02. People plant trees, let's say, and are paid. They spent their wages, and the goods and services they buy generate CO2. Every time a coin changes hands, CO2 is released. This is because our population runs on fossil fuel. Our other commodities - plastic, metal, timber, food, water and so on, are also dependant on fossil fuels. The only way to stop the release of CO2 is to completely swap out fossil fuel for electric at the ground level. But the building of an all electric infrastructure requires fossil fuel, and will do for many years. If we want to maintain our "standard of living" this is.

 

The other option, is to reduce our standard of living. What this really means, is moving to an essentials only economy, where commodities are rationed, rather than competed for. It means the relinquishment of choice for the masses. 

 

The third option is let the fate of humanity play out. Maybe use up all the fossil fuels and starve. Maybe heat up the climate and starve. Maybe the climate heats up and we don't starve and we reduce our consumption by necessity because the supply is no longer there. Unknowns. But people are afraid of the unknown because they have children. Understandably.

 

The problem with the second road is we are talking about communism. Children will grow up in a totalitarian system that artificially limits their potential. Is this a future worth having? 

 

In other parts of the world, people will continue to use fossil fuels, climate change or no. They will economically advance and emit more and more CO2. Our changing social model will not prevent this.

 

And the elephant in the room is this: is the hypothesis of the predicted climate Armageddon actually true? And, if so, are we actually causing it? What if the climate is changing naturally, as it did in the past? This debate was quashed by the establishment, in the same way the debate about covid was quashed. It smacks of forceful manipulation and leads many to doubt...

 

Are you the guy who believes in astrology? I get confused.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I’d venture to suggest, somewhat in line with Hairychest’s (presumed) thinking that even the most pious and zealous advocates of immediate, whole scale, global change, and the whiny little c*nts like Greta, don’t actually have the constitution for the only viable ‘solution’ to the problem that they are virtue signalling.
 

If - “if” - the cataclysm is genuinely imminent then the only feasible solution is the immediate recognition that certain areas of the planet are already incapable of sustaining human life.  That birth control is implemented in areas that still are viable / tenable. That absolute barriers are established to prevent the movement of people. 

 

But - with economies tied to GDP and GDP dependent upon extraction, manufacture and consumption and consumption dependant upon population, the inevitable global conflict following the economic crash and population control will inevitably bring about the demise quicker than the theoretical impact of climate change. 
 

Bit like Covid really - we may come to realise that the cure is worse than the disease

Edited November 6, 2021 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[peds]

Just now, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

If - “if” - the cataclysm is genuinely imminent then the only feasible solution is the immediate recognition that certain areas of the planet are already incapable of sustaining human life.  That birth control is implemented in areas that still are viable / tenable. That absolute barriers are established to prevent the movement of people. 

 

Great idea, but I would suggest actually moving more people into the areas destined to be uninhabitable, starting with anyone still actively rowing in the wrong direction. I could start drawing up a list if you want, comrade. 

 

With regards to absolute barriers preventing the movement of people, those will be standard national policy by the early 2030s, with horrific results. Starvation camps that dwarf the likes of Auschwitz will be commonplace, and instead of being viewed with disgust as they would be by any civilised human being today, they will be seen as absolutely essential to survival. This is a change of my own opinion that I'm not looking forward to. 

 

 

[trigger_andy]

 

This Sycamore in my garden had started to bud. Since this is due to climate change I chopped it down today. Crisis averted.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

31 minutes ago, peds said:

 

Great idea, but I would suggest actually moving more people into the areas destined to be uninhabitable, starting with anyone still actively rowing in the wrong direction. I could start drawing up a list if you want, comrade. 

 

With regards to absolute barriers preventing the movement of people, those will be standard national policy by the early 2030s, with horrific results. Starvation camps that dwarf the likes of Auschwitz will be commonplace, and instead of being viewed with disgust as they would be by any civilised human being today, they will be seen as absolutely essential to survival. This is a change of my own opinion that I'm not looking forward to. 

 

 

So we’re actually not that far apart in what ‘needs’ to happen (to properly reduce emissions) - just perhaps slightly different ideas about how to get there. 
 

I mean, I’d possibly agree that certain attributes might qualify one for ‘the list’ - pretty sure we’d differ on what those qualifying attributes might be though 😂

[sime42]

Love it

Ai, it's funny. Just a bit tragic that it's more or less true.

[Mick Dempsey]

We are multiplying like an out of control virus on the planet, over 7 billion, more than double the number than when I was born in 1963.

 

Deforestation, burning oil and coal etc.

 

Nothing to do with us though. All a conspiracy to tax us more etc.

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Mick Dempsey

[trigger_andy]

We are multiplying like an out of control virus on the planet, over 7 billion, more than double the number when I was born in 1963.
 
Deforestation, burning oil and coal etc.
 
Nothing to do with us though. All a conspiracy to tax us more etc.
 

So we either depopulate or we get used to everything being taxed out of our price range. Meat and international travel for those that can afford it, the elite. And we’ll lap it up it’s “saving” the environment.

[Mick Dempsey]

5 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

 

 

So we either depopulate or we get used to everything being taxed out of our price range. Meat and international travel for those that can afford it, the elite. And we’ll lap it up it’s “saving” the environment.

 

 

I’m not offering solutions, just stating the obvious.

 

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Mick Dempsey said:

I’m not offering solutions, just stating the obvious.

 

Me too. 🤣

 

 

I noticed it’s now over eight quid for two organic chicken breasts in Tesco’s now. A sign of things to come maybe.