Grumpy Greta: blah blah blah

[dogslobber]

Holy crap, that is insane. Just, screw the next generation because, ??? – profits! I mean, so far the concept of terraforming is way beyond the sticks, so, where do we go?


And, this "grumpy" label is some pretty weak tea. Her anger is being deprecated by calling her "grumpy". Yeah, it is a delightful alliteration, but you just do not want to look at what she is yelling about.

You sounds like you want the world to sign up to "saving the planet" at "any cost". Literally, give us an open cheque book is your posturing. Show me how that money will actually give us RoI and how much it will cost. Those are pretty rational questions.

A teenager who is angry and having a tantrum is nothing new. You don't give your kids sweets and unlimited funds when they throw the toys out of the pram. Or, maybe you do.

 

[dogslobber]

I get being cranky over kids boo-hoo'ing over not getting a new iPhone, but you seem to be taking some kind of general anti "current young generation", and suggesting concern over the environment is somehow self-serving? She's not asking for personal material gain, she's not asking for any kind of "free ride", she's showing concern over the only planet we currently have.

My daughter has a pretty mature and educated understanding of the implications of not doing anything, and she's only 13.




For my daughter, for my nephew, for our best friend's son, no price tag is too much.

You don't have kids, right?

Greta isn't showing just "concern" she's one of many demanding to bankrupt yourself, the universe, and then spend more. The sums don't add up because the sheet of paper is blank. This blank sheet of paper is what you are saying your children and siblings' children are demanding.

My children are irrelevant to this discussion so stop trying to frame it like that.

 

[Eric]

You sounds like you want the world to sign up to "saving the planet" at "any cost".

Yes, this is exactly what we want the world to do. All the money in the world won't mean shit if your city is under water.

 

[dogslobber]

My point is that your post hit a threshold where I’m not willing to intellectualize.

what the most hilarious thing is here, and take this from a PhD, that government funded climate research is probably one the lowest paid career option for these people. So you just beat them up for staying in school. Ohh the irony.

Hey, I liked Geography and school too and Geology was fun digging for rocks and getting your fingers dirty. If you don't want to engage on an "intellectual" basis then follow the adage of if you've got nothing nice to say then keep quiet.

 

[dogslobber]

If you think Europe is insulated from climate change, you've been blinkered and you're about to face a real awakening.

And, to be clear, I thought that climate change was such a problem, and resilience so necessary, that I laid down thousands to set up a solar array at my home, along with a rainwater harvesting system. (The link between energy and water cannot be understated.) My mountain home—a former family ranch—has its own array, and has been humming along for years. We could probably do a better job of knocking down our emissions from our cars—I've got a couple of SUVs, and an old CJ-7 that guzzles fuel at the mountain house—but our overall CO2 emissions are about one-quarter the average American household.

It helps that we live close to my wife's work and my son's school, and we bike a lot. I also have invested heavily in "green" companies, and that's actually paid dividends.



Why don't you go read the reports, and the estimates?

We cannot control the temperature like a thermostat, but by shifting CO2 emissions, we can minimize the greenhouse effect from future emissions. Obviously, if we don't do anything, the cost in damage gets higher as does the cost to stop it.

We're a car speeding toward a concrete wall. The longer we accelerate, the harder it will be to stop. If we stopped 20 feet ago, we'd have to put less effort into stopping. And, for every year we don't do anything, we get closer to the wall. And, if we wait too long, even if we throw our entire effort into stopping, we'll still hit the wall.

You're asking when we'll stop, and I'm telling you that we needed to stop 20 feet ago, and that it gets harder every year. And, the cost to stop is less than the cost of hitting the wall.

The irony is I'm probably more climate aware and conscience of it than most people on here. But I'm also not prone to consume these nonsense reports. When something says it can cost between $2T and $900T to fix then that's is not research, it's random guessing. I can make up numbers on my own. The fact is everybody is nobody knows. The only metric available is the global cost of COVID to the world economy and you can only extrapolate from that. But nobody seems to have tried. The key point here is that any amount of money you think is needed has to be paid for.

 

[dogslobber]

Are we almost to the point where the mods swoop in and edit this thread down to a picture of Clint Eastwood and a chair, or am I thinking of a different forum?

Why? Does it not suit the narrative you like painted about this discussion? It's convenient when everybody is willing to agree to something as groupthink is a nice way forward. But if this thread should teach you anything is that when people have one viewpoint and they're asked things like "how will this be paid for?" then they're not willing to show how much money they're willing to personally sacrifice.

What do you hold dear materially? Your house? Your car? Any and all home comforts you have. I want you to sacrifice those as part of this global warming price tag. This is the big issue. People won't be willing to give up those things when push comes to shove as they like to flag wave until if directly affects them. If you think getting solar panels or blah helps the environment then that is a waste of money and is irrelevant. Sell your house and give that money to the global warming price tag. But people won't. As their self-needs come first.

I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to such notions. I merely call out the facts. There might be a global warming issue but nobody has identified if it is man made or not. How much will it cost? If you can't offer a value proposition then you can't have a solution. Then how much are you personally willing to commit to the cause? You have to suffer your cost of living plummeting to finance this. You, personally, along with your immediate family, kids, grandkids must pay for this cost. If you are unwilling to do that and you want others to fund unlimited cash to "save the planet" then you are a hypocrite.

 

[User.45]

Hey, I liked Geography and school too and Geology was fun digging for rocks and getting your fingers dirty. If you don't want to engage on an "intellectual" basis then follow the adage of if you've got nothing nice to say then keep quiet.

Lol. That applies to you my friend and you are OP.

Until you’ve seen a geology paper in Nature or Science, you know nothing about geology. I’ve read a book on scientific writing written by a geologist and he used examples from his own papers (published in these journals). It was super cool and a lot more sophisticated than I thought, and my preconceived notions of geology were a lot more complex than your presentation above, LOL.

My time is a lot more valuable to try to fix stupid, but I’ll summarize your stance:
1. Preventing and mitigating catastrophe is more expensive than just awaiting catastrophe and dealing with it post hoc

2. The youth is supposed to pay for the environmental debt accrued by your/our lifestyle and they should take it without a word.

3. And then the northerners will whine about immigration when equatorial earth becomes inhabitable and your kids will be spending their hard earned money on murdering those trying to cross the southern borders.

 

[dogslobber]

Yes, this is exactly what we want the world to do. All the money in the world won't mean shit if your city is under water.

And there we have it. Dramatize the extreme as being the norm out of all this to demand unlimited funded be foist upon the unwashed masses. Or now they'll be able to bathe anywhere in your extreme scenario.

 

[Pumbaa]

The irony is I'm probably more climate aware and conscience of it than most people on here. But I'm also not prone to consume these nonsense reports. When something says it can cost between $2T and $900T to fix then that's is not research, it's random guessing. I can make up numbers on my own. The fact is everybody is nobody knows. The only metric available is the global cost of COVID to the world economy and you can only extrapolate from that. But nobody seems to have tried. The key point here is that any amount of money you think is needed has to be paid for.

Yes, I’m sure nobody doubts that you can make up numbers on your own. You are, after all, making up lots of other things in this thread.

You don’t listen to Greta, yet you ”know“ everything about her, her (lack of) qualifications, and what she is saying, thinking and doing. Except that it doesn’t line up with reality.

You don’t read the reports but you “know” they’re nonsense. Saying something can cost between $2T and $900T isn’t necessarily random guessing, it can absolutely be the result of impeccable research. I have no idea what report you’re referring to (or if you made those numbers up on your own) but typically different scenarios are proposed with different estimates attached to them, and it is documented how they were calculated.

 

[Yoused]

The most financially sensible place to start is to nationalize the fossil fuel industry, seize all of their assets, put the executives out on the street (or in prison) and use the revenue stream to fund the move away from fossil fuels. There really is no reason not to do this.

 

[SuperMatt]

The irony is I'm probably more climate aware and conscience of it than most people on here. But I'm also not prone to consume these nonsense reports. When something says it can cost between $2T and $900T to fix then that's is not research, it's random guessing. I can make up numbers on my own. The fact is everybody is nobody knows. The only metric available is the global cost of COVID to the world economy and you can only extrapolate from that. But nobody seems to have tried. The key point here is that any amount of money you think is needed has to be paid for.

Money is a construct of human society. If humans cease to exist or the population is decimated, it is worthless. "You can’t take it with you...” as the song goes.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Money is a construct of human society. If humans cease to exist or the population is decimated, it is worthless. "You can’t take it with you...” as the song goes.

From what I can ascertain is everybody in this thread is supposed to be outraged about paying more taxes. Paying more taxes outweighs and nullifies all other arguments and there shouldn’t even be any counter arguments because taxes. Taxes. You will be homeless if we do any of this stuff. In summary.

 

[dogslobber]

The most financially sensible place to start is to nationalize the fossil fuel industry, seize all of their assets, put the executives out on the street (or in prison) and use the revenue stream to fund the move away from fossil fuels. There really is no reason not to do this.

What you say is not far from how this problem should be tackled. 71%of global carbon emissions come from 100 companies according to this article below. You can look yourself and see who the culprits are. If Greta and her supporters on here are saying money is no object then every one of these companies should be nationalized and shut down immediately. If that doesn't save the planet then nothing will.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change

www.theguardian.com

There, folks. That is the solution on offer. Nothing you or I do will make one iota of difference so I generally don't make decisions based on how my carbon footprint can be reduced or BS like that. I couldn't give a damn as I don't pollute worth a penny. I make my decisions based on financial cost to me so solar panels are never going on my roof as they're junk. Solar shingles might be better and save me money in the long run. I reduced from three to one car as I work from home. The value proposition to me is cost not how much petrol engines stink up the atmosphere. Nothing I really do is relevant. Everything that can be done must be done from dealing with the solution I propose above.

 

[Yoused]

Nothing I really do is relevant.

Well, the point of Greta Thunberg's events is to convince more people to support the efforts aimed at reducing carbon dioxide output. Most of us, individually, can do very little, but if enough of us band together and put pressure on the people who can, then we might be able to make progress on this front. If we have a leader who can inspire us to do that, even if she is only a teenager, that is a positive force.

 

[Pumbaa]

Well, the point of Greta Thunberg's events is to convince more people to support the efforts aimed at reducing carbon dioxide output. Most of us, individually, can do very little, but if enough of us band together and put pressure on the people who can, then we might be able to make progress on this front. If we have a leader who can inspire us to do that, even if she is only a teenager, that is a positive force.

It is also a way to put pressure on the companies responsible for the output by adjusting the demand. If companies make more money doing the right thing than not doing the right thing, guess what they’ll be doing in the long run?

Greta & Co. are heavily into pressuring politicians to act. Making voters care helps with that, too.

 

[User.45]

What you say is not far from how this problem should be tackled. 71%of global carbon emissions come from 100 companies according to this article below. You can look yourself and see who the culprits are. If Greta and her supporters on here are saying money is no object then every one of these companies should be nationalized and shut down immediately. If that doesn't save the planet then nothing will.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change

www.theguardian.com

You’ve managed to make a post that is extremist but also defeatist at the same time.

Money is a construct of human society. If humans cease to exist or the population is decimated, it is worthless. "You can’t take it with you...” as the song goes.

This 100%. Pollution is the ultimate form of debt because it’s never forgiven.

 

[hulugu]

Why? Does it not suit the narrative you like painted about this discussion? It's convenient when everybody is willing to agree to something as groupthink is a nice way forward. But if this thread should teach you anything is that when people have one viewpoint and they're asked things like "how will this be paid for?" then they're not willing to show how much money they're willing to personally sacrifice.

What do you hold dear materially? Your house? Your car? Any and all home comforts you have. I want you to sacrifice those as part of this global warming price tag. This is the big issue. People won't be willing to give up those things when push comes to shove as they like to flag wave until if directly affects them. If you think getting solar panels or blah helps the environment then that is a waste of money and is irrelevant. Sell your house and give that money to the global warming price tag. But people won't. As their self-needs come first.

I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to such notions. I merely call out the facts. There might be a global warming issue but nobody has identified if it is man made or not. How much will it cost? If you can't offer a value proposition then you can't have a solution. Then how much are you personally willing to commit to the cause? You have to suffer your cost of living plummeting to finance this. You, personally, along with your immediate family, kids, grandkids must pay for this cost. If you are unwilling to do that and you want others to fund unlimited cash to "save the planet" then you are a hypocrite.

I don't hold anything material dearly. I mean stuff's nice, but it's just stuff.

And, I haven't sacrificed, but I cut my emissions to about one-quarter of the average American household. (Which also means, my CO2 cost is even further below the very wealthy.) I have two big costs that I can't really control—air travel and food.

Now, we've been eating less and less meat each year, and I haven't flown for pleasure since Oct. 19, but I'm still producing CO2. We garden a bit, but it's hard to get all the vegetables we eat in a monsoon garden.

Did we sacrifice? No. My house is cool in the summer with A/C, and warm in the winter with gas heat. But, the house also produces a significant amount of energy, and it's really efficient. We got there with some money, some clever engineering solutions, and some blood and sweat.

I assume that if everyone did what we did, we'd get a dramatic cut in CO2 production. I also figure that clever design, social policy, and a real reckoning with the externalities of our economy, we'd get real efficiencies.

But, arguing that people have to get rid of their house is just fear-mongering nonsense.

As for the costs, I've given you estimated costs, and as anyone knows, big social, national level policies have to be estimated because there's assumptions and nitty-gritty details that drive the costs around. It also depends on when we did this—Today's costs are different from tomorrow's.

You're complaining about the cost estimates, but getting your car worked on, or getting the plumbing done always includes an estimate. We don't entirely know because we don't have the strictures of policy drawn up, nor do we know all the pitfalls and savings. So, yeah, you estimate costs. And, the wide variety of estimations also highlight lots of different ways to solve this problem. Some plans are more expensive than others.

 

[User.45]

I don't hold anything material dearly. I mean stuff's nice, but it's just stuff.

And, I haven't sacrificed, but I cut my emissions to about one-quarter of the average American household. (Which also means, my CO2 cost is even further below the very wealthy.) I have two big costs that I can't really control—air travel and food.

Now, we've been eating less and less meat each year, and I haven't flown for pleasure since Oct. 19, but I'm still producing CO2. We garden a bit, but it's hard to get all the vegetables we eat in a monsoon garden.

Did we sacrifice? No. My house is cool in the summer with A/C, and warm in the winter with gas heat. But, the house also produces a significant amount of energy, and it's really efficient. We got there with some money, some clever engineering solutions, and some blood and sweat.

I assume that if everyone did what we did, we'd get a dramatic cut in CO2 production. I also figure that clever design, social policy, and a real reckoning with the externalities of our economy, we'd get real efficiencies.

But, arguing that people have to get rid of their house is just fear-mongering nonsense.

As for the costs, I've given you estimated costs, and as anyone knows, big social, national level policies have to be estimated because there's assumptions and nitty-gritty details that drive the costs around. It also depends on when we did this—Today's costs are different from tomorrow's.

You're complaining about the cost estimates, but getting your car worked on, or getting the plumbing done always includes an estimate. We don't entirely know because we don't have the strictures of policy drawn up, nor do we know all the pitfalls and savings. So, yeah, you estimate costs. And, the wide variety of estimations also highlight lots of different ways to solve this problem. Some plans are more expensive than others.

Just checked, my household is also 25% of the US average But without solar panels. Those will take us down to 10%. But it’s important to also consider the shit we buy That gets shipped and manufactured for our needs. So in reality these numbers are much higher just counted for other entities.

 

[hulugu]

Just checked, my household is also 25% of the US average But without solar panels. Those will take us down to 10%. But it’s important to also consider the shit we buy That gets shipped and manufactured for our needs. So in reality these numbers are much higher just counted for other entities.

Yeah, I suspect that these numbers are off. And, you're right about global shipments of stuff. I try to buy a lot local, but even that stuff is made/produced/manufactured from things that come from all over the world.

But, I can't solve that problem. Which is why we need real climate action that extends into global commerce.

My point is both that sacrifices are often over-stated, and that there's a finite limit to personal action.

 

[Deleted member 215]

This thread made me think of something that was pointed out in an episode of Citations Needed. They were talking about teen football players taking a knee, but the point stands: teenagers are always accused of being apathetic, but when they do speak out, they're told to shut up and fall in line. It's almost like the only thing worse than being apathetic is actually doing something.