comment by Wetherby White (U6810)
posted 16 seconds ago
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or this
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It’s possible to completely separate this from people in the developed world quietly making personal and pragmatic decisions based on their own beliefs though, no?
It isn’t an incoherent position to take the personal decision not to have children on environmental grounds whilst accepting that others should be completely free to make their own, unpressured, choices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. No issues with that. I'm just very conscious that on every discussion of the subject you'll get some voices essentially arguing that (developing world) over-population is the primary driver of climate change, which leads to two very dangerous ideas. First, that there's no point in 'us' in the developed world adapting in any way. Second, that if over-population is the cause, depopulation is the solution.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
Myth 1. “Small islands are doomed by rising sea levels”
We constantly hear Micronesia, the Maldives or Seychelles or something is going to be flooded and they’re only like a metre or two metres above sea level…What happens is most of these islands are coral islands, so they have actually occurred because they break off dead coral when there’s storms and wash it ashore. That accretes to the island and makes the island higher. At the same time, of course, a sea level rise makes the island lower. But it turns out that at least for now, and probably in the foreseeable future, the accretion is higher than the sea level rise.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 2: “Extreme weather events are killing more people”
If you take a graph of how many people die from climate related disasters, we have good data for that for the last 100 years. In the 1920s, about half a million people died each and every year from climate disasters. A lot of them were floods and droughts, especially in China and India that you’ve never heard of. What’s happened since then is that it’s declined dramatically. So in the 2010s, we were down to 18,000 deaths, so about 96% reduction in deaths. And last year, it was down to 14,000 or so in 2020. And in 2021, we don’t obviously have the whole year yet, but it looks like 2021 is set to be even lower at about 6000.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 3: “Climate lockdowns are a good solution”
The first thing to realise is despite the fact that we shut down the entire world in 2020, we still emitted almost as much. We probably cut our emissions about 6% globally. That’s because we still have to heat our homes. We sat at home and Zoomed instead and used electricity in that way. So when you shut down one thing you end up doing something else. And so yes, you can cut your emissions a little bit. But it turns out that it’s really hard to shut down dramatically. For example, when China was most shut down, it still emitted 84% of its normal emissions.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 4: “Electric cars don’t harm the environment”
Electric cars are being sold as net zero. But what they actually are is that they’re zero when they’re driving. But much of the energy that you tank up your car, unless you live in Norway, is basically fossil fuel. And of course, most of the battery is produced in China or somewhere else where it emitted a lot of co2 typically from coal fired power plants.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 5: “Polar bears are going extinct on melting ice caps”
First of all, remember the polar bears lived through the last time there was probably no ice in the Arctic, which was five to eight thousand years ago. So clearly, it’s not the end of the world for them. But also, and we need to recognise we’re still seeing a trending upwards of polar bears…We’ve probably gone from somewhere between five and ten thousand polar bears, up till today, where we have about 25,000 polar bears
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 6: “Stop eating meat to save the planet”
The reality is that going meat free is only going to do a little bit for climate. We often hear that, ‘Oh, it’s 50% of your food intake’, and you only hear the 50% so you can apparently reduce 50%. But it’s only 50% of your food emissions. So the reality is, when you look at the total impact it’s about 4%.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 7: “Wildfires are getting worse, and proof of climate change”
We’ve actually seen that wildfire has been declining in amount of burnt area pretty much every year since 1900…Overall, Australia for instance had one of its lowest burns ever. It used to burn in the early 1900s about 12% of the area of Australia every year. It went down to about 6-8%, typically in the early 2000s. In 2019/20 it burned a little less than 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be the Bjorn Lomborg who does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in journals devoted to climate change research?
The Bjorn Lomborg who was formally accused of scientific misconduct over one of his books which the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty stated was systematically biased in the choice of data, and objectively was scientifically irredeemable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies I was wrong about the peer reviewed journal.
As for his actual arguments:
"But, like his previous contributions to this issue, Dr Lomborg’s arguments are based on fantastical numbers that have little or no credibility. Overall, the numbers presented by Dr Lomborg, who has a PhD in political science, understate the potential economic impacts of climate change and exaggerate the costs of cutting greenhouse gases. And he has promoted them apparently secure in the knowledge that they will not be fact-checked by book publishers or newspaper comment editors."
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
He has absolutely no academic background in climate change. His qualifications are in political science.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It’s possible to completely separate this from people in the developed world quietly making personal and pragmatic decisions based on their own beliefs though, no?
It isn’t an incoherent position to take the personal decision not to have children on environmental grounds whilst accepting that others should be completely free to make their own, unpressured, choices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. No issues with that. I'm just very conscious that on every discussion of the subject you'll get some voices essentially arguing that (developing world) over-population is the primary driver of climate change, which leads to two very dangerous ideas. First, that there's no point in 'us' in the developed world adapting in any way. Second, that if over-population is the cause, depopulation is the solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I think it’s very (impossibly?) difficult to make depopulation sensibly or very safely part of the discussion.
The myth 4 is a load of sheit anyway, nobody says electric cars dont cause emissions - they just reduce them.
comment by Wetherby White (U6810)
posted 5 minutes ago
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon it might actually happen one day. Then what? Would you stick by your claim that they deserved to die? Would someone then have the right to kill you if they disagreed with your stance? Like if they thought you were a smelly, right wing, brexit noonnce and ran you over and killed you. Would you be ok with that, whilst being dead?
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 39 seconds ago
The myth 4 is a load of sheit anyway, nobody says electric cars dont cause emissions - they just reduce them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember though, it's a black and white world.
Try reading what I have actually written and offer your thoughts. If that's too difficult, then get back to gluing your face to the road please. It's more productive.
--------------------------
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Wetherby White (U6810)
posted 5 minutes ago
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon it might actually happen one day. Then what? Would you stick by your claim that they deserved to die? Would someone then have the right to kill you if they disagreed with your stance? Like if they thought you were a smelly, right wing, brexit noonnce and ran you over and killed you. Would you be ok with that, whilst being dead?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of our board would be OK with it, he's a Leeds supporter. Where's my car keys?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm!?
It’s things like this that infuriate me:
https://twitter.com/jjsabbagh1/status/1589983699550236672?s=46&t=m--I087mMU6_Bn06nkFQEw
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
Those two points, I wasn't necessarily linking but I would wager that if we polled all of those whom believed in this depopulation nonsense, they would be vehemently anti-capitalist.
Agree with your comments in entirety and would just add that I think we need more people, not less.
I don't particularly want to align myself with Bill Gates but I agree with his comments linked earlier in saying that innovation will be the key.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure the left-right lens is particularly useful in these environmental issues (and obviously right / left have different meanings in economic or social contexts, and plenty of people have one foot in left and one in right, depending on whether you're talking about government spending or traditional values). Speaking only for my own values, my left-wing tendencies are based on valuing pursuit of the common good, with the aim that everyone can lead a dignified life with their basic material needs met. I'm in favour of personally paying higher taxes to these ends, and for my company to be taxed and regulated. For the same reasons, I'm happy to bear a heavier burden than the world's poorer people to drive global decarbonisation.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to quantify these things but as a millennial myself, I know an awful lot of people who have become vegan/reduced their meat consumption since becoming an adult.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
comment by Hawkeye78 (U22468)
posted 1 minute ago
Some of the comments on this thread are exactly the reason they are protesting. No one is listening and only care their own insignificant lives. So you were a bit late to work, who cares? The alternative if we do nothing is far far worse. If I had kids, I'd be genuinely terrified for their future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their lives are no more insignificant than anyone else.
To live a green life can be very difficult. I could not have done my job without a car for example. I try in little ways, buy local etc, and walk everywhere when possible, which is 90% of the time.
But I still went on holiday by plane.
How do environmentalists live there lives, now and in the past.
How about you Hawkeye?
Rosso?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good, this is the EXACT point. I think most accept that you can't shut everything down and stop oil aren't asking us to stop using it today, they just don't want us to open up more oil fields.
You are doing your bit so good for you. If only more were like that it would make a difference. I don't claim to be perfect because it's very difficult as you say, but I'm aware of my actions and try every day to improve them.
The efficacy of electric cars to reduce the impact on climate change is pretty much directly tied to the amount of electricity we can generate as renewable. As long as we're not renewable, all you're really doing is substituting putting liquid dinosaur into your car, for someone else using it to generate your electric.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to quantify these things but as a millennial myself, I know an awful lot of people who have become vegan/reduced their meat consumption since becoming an adult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to say - veganism/vegetarianism is the area where I would expect to see younger people making more sacrifices than their elders. Fast fashion, perhaps not.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption
^
This part, the meat consumption listed comment seems massively wrong.
The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
Appreciate it's hard to quantify but I think those having a pop at older generations, telling us it's only young people who care, should probably show some data to back it up.
People saying they care, in a survey, is bullsheite data.
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption
^
This part, the meat consumption listed comment seems massively wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question.
What part of that don't you understand?
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
The efficacy of electric cars to reduce the impact on climate change is pretty much directly tied to the amount of electricity we can generate as renewable. As long as we're not renewable, all you're really doing is substituting putting liquid dinosaur into your car, for someone else using it to generate your electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't, you can generate electricity a lot cleaner even with the use of fossil fuels than you can with the direct use of petrol.
Plus 'not renewable' shows such a lack of education about energy production its baffling.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 'absolute lie' statement earlier was quite categorical, suggesting you have something more than anecdotal evidence to go on to support the idea that younger people only claim to care about the environment. Do you?
For what it's worth, I only have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, and I think it's silly to construct a narrative of morally good vs morally corrupt generations. We're all wired the same way, all flawed, and all shaped by our ever-shifting culture. I think it's hard to deny the fact that the millennial / Gen-Z culture emphasises threats to the environment more, as well as things like the trend against owning expensive assets in favour of shared economy / digital content. It's also true that marketeers are clever at selling product that appeals to their values without delivering on substance.
Sign in if you want to comment
Fack the protestors
Page 9 of 17
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Wetherby White (U6810)
posted 16 seconds ago
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or this
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It’s possible to completely separate this from people in the developed world quietly making personal and pragmatic decisions based on their own beliefs though, no?
It isn’t an incoherent position to take the personal decision not to have children on environmental grounds whilst accepting that others should be completely free to make their own, unpressured, choices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. No issues with that. I'm just very conscious that on every discussion of the subject you'll get some voices essentially arguing that (developing world) over-population is the primary driver of climate change, which leads to two very dangerous ideas. First, that there's no point in 'us' in the developed world adapting in any way. Second, that if over-population is the cause, depopulation is the solution.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
Myth 1. “Small islands are doomed by rising sea levels”
We constantly hear Micronesia, the Maldives or Seychelles or something is going to be flooded and they’re only like a metre or two metres above sea level…What happens is most of these islands are coral islands, so they have actually occurred because they break off dead coral when there’s storms and wash it ashore. That accretes to the island and makes the island higher. At the same time, of course, a sea level rise makes the island lower. But it turns out that at least for now, and probably in the foreseeable future, the accretion is higher than the sea level rise.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 2: “Extreme weather events are killing more people”
If you take a graph of how many people die from climate related disasters, we have good data for that for the last 100 years. In the 1920s, about half a million people died each and every year from climate disasters. A lot of them were floods and droughts, especially in China and India that you’ve never heard of. What’s happened since then is that it’s declined dramatically. So in the 2010s, we were down to 18,000 deaths, so about 96% reduction in deaths. And last year, it was down to 14,000 or so in 2020. And in 2021, we don’t obviously have the whole year yet, but it looks like 2021 is set to be even lower at about 6000.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 3: “Climate lockdowns are a good solution”
The first thing to realise is despite the fact that we shut down the entire world in 2020, we still emitted almost as much. We probably cut our emissions about 6% globally. That’s because we still have to heat our homes. We sat at home and Zoomed instead and used electricity in that way. So when you shut down one thing you end up doing something else. And so yes, you can cut your emissions a little bit. But it turns out that it’s really hard to shut down dramatically. For example, when China was most shut down, it still emitted 84% of its normal emissions.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 4: “Electric cars don’t harm the environment”
Electric cars are being sold as net zero. But what they actually are is that they’re zero when they’re driving. But much of the energy that you tank up your car, unless you live in Norway, is basically fossil fuel. And of course, most of the battery is produced in China or somewhere else where it emitted a lot of co2 typically from coal fired power plants.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 5: “Polar bears are going extinct on melting ice caps”
First of all, remember the polar bears lived through the last time there was probably no ice in the Arctic, which was five to eight thousand years ago. So clearly, it’s not the end of the world for them. But also, and we need to recognise we’re still seeing a trending upwards of polar bears…We’ve probably gone from somewhere between five and ten thousand polar bears, up till today, where we have about 25,000 polar bears
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 6: “Stop eating meat to save the planet”
The reality is that going meat free is only going to do a little bit for climate. We often hear that, ‘Oh, it’s 50% of your food intake’, and you only hear the 50% so you can apparently reduce 50%. But it’s only 50% of your food emissions. So the reality is, when you look at the total impact it’s about 4%.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 7: “Wildfires are getting worse, and proof of climate change”
We’ve actually seen that wildfire has been declining in amount of burnt area pretty much every year since 1900…Overall, Australia for instance had one of its lowest burns ever. It used to burn in the early 1900s about 12% of the area of Australia every year. It went down to about 6-8%, typically in the early 2000s. In 2019/20 it burned a little less than 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be the Bjorn Lomborg who does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in journals devoted to climate change research?
The Bjorn Lomborg who was formally accused of scientific misconduct over one of his books which the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty stated was systematically biased in the choice of data, and objectively was scientifically irredeemable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies I was wrong about the peer reviewed journal.
As for his actual arguments:
"But, like his previous contributions to this issue, Dr Lomborg’s arguments are based on fantastical numbers that have little or no credibility. Overall, the numbers presented by Dr Lomborg, who has a PhD in political science, understate the potential economic impacts of climate change and exaggerate the costs of cutting greenhouse gases. And he has promoted them apparently secure in the knowledge that they will not be fact-checked by book publishers or newspaper comment editors."
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
He has absolutely no academic background in climate change. His qualifications are in political science.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It’s possible to completely separate this from people in the developed world quietly making personal and pragmatic decisions based on their own beliefs though, no?
It isn’t an incoherent position to take the personal decision not to have children on environmental grounds whilst accepting that others should be completely free to make their own, unpressured, choices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. No issues with that. I'm just very conscious that on every discussion of the subject you'll get some voices essentially arguing that (developing world) over-population is the primary driver of climate change, which leads to two very dangerous ideas. First, that there's no point in 'us' in the developed world adapting in any way. Second, that if over-population is the cause, depopulation is the solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I think it’s very (impossibly?) difficult to make depopulation sensibly or very safely part of the discussion.
posted on 8/11/22
The myth 4 is a load of sheit anyway, nobody says electric cars dont cause emissions - they just reduce them.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Wetherby White (U6810)
posted 5 minutes ago
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon it might actually happen one day. Then what? Would you stick by your claim that they deserved to die? Would someone then have the right to kill you if they disagreed with your stance? Like if they thought you were a smelly, right wing, brexit noonnce and ran you over and killed you. Would you be ok with that, whilst being dead?
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 39 seconds ago
The myth 4 is a load of sheit anyway, nobody says electric cars dont cause emissions - they just reduce them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember though, it's a black and white world.
posted on 8/11/22
Try reading what I have actually written and offer your thoughts. If that's too difficult, then get back to gluing your face to the road please. It's more productive.
--------------------------
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Wetherby White (U6810)
posted 5 minutes ago
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon it might actually happen one day. Then what? Would you stick by your claim that they deserved to die? Would someone then have the right to kill you if they disagreed with your stance? Like if they thought you were a smelly, right wing, brexit noonnce and ran you over and killed you. Would you be ok with that, whilst being dead?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of our board would be OK with it, he's a Leeds supporter. Where's my car keys?
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm!?
posted on 8/11/22
It’s things like this that infuriate me:
https://twitter.com/jjsabbagh1/status/1589983699550236672?s=46&t=m--I087mMU6_Bn06nkFQEw
posted on 8/11/22
Edinspur (U1109)
?
posted on 8/11/22
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
Those two points, I wasn't necessarily linking but I would wager that if we polled all of those whom believed in this depopulation nonsense, they would be vehemently anti-capitalist.
Agree with your comments in entirety and would just add that I think we need more people, not less.
I don't particularly want to align myself with Bill Gates but I agree with his comments linked earlier in saying that innovation will be the key.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure the left-right lens is particularly useful in these environmental issues (and obviously right / left have different meanings in economic or social contexts, and plenty of people have one foot in left and one in right, depending on whether you're talking about government spending or traditional values). Speaking only for my own values, my left-wing tendencies are based on valuing pursuit of the common good, with the aim that everyone can lead a dignified life with their basic material needs met. I'm in favour of personally paying higher taxes to these ends, and for my company to be taxed and regulated. For the same reasons, I'm happy to bear a heavier burden than the world's poorer people to drive global decarbonisation.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to quantify these things but as a millennial myself, I know an awful lot of people who have become vegan/reduced their meat consumption since becoming an adult.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
comment by Hawkeye78 (U22468)
posted 1 minute ago
Some of the comments on this thread are exactly the reason they are protesting. No one is listening and only care their own insignificant lives. So you were a bit late to work, who cares? The alternative if we do nothing is far far worse. If I had kids, I'd be genuinely terrified for their future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their lives are no more insignificant than anyone else.
To live a green life can be very difficult. I could not have done my job without a car for example. I try in little ways, buy local etc, and walk everywhere when possible, which is 90% of the time.
But I still went on holiday by plane.
How do environmentalists live there lives, now and in the past.
How about you Hawkeye?
Rosso?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good, this is the EXACT point. I think most accept that you can't shut everything down and stop oil aren't asking us to stop using it today, they just don't want us to open up more oil fields.
You are doing your bit so good for you. If only more were like that it would make a difference. I don't claim to be perfect because it's very difficult as you say, but I'm aware of my actions and try every day to improve them.
posted on 8/11/22
The efficacy of electric cars to reduce the impact on climate change is pretty much directly tied to the amount of electricity we can generate as renewable. As long as we're not renewable, all you're really doing is substituting putting liquid dinosaur into your car, for someone else using it to generate your electric.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 39 minutes ago
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never know if you're on the wind up on these threads.
Where exactly is the evidence that younger people are changing their behaviour in response to a concern around the climate?
I don't see it.
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to quantify these things but as a millennial myself, I know an awful lot of people who have become vegan/reduced their meat consumption since becoming an adult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to say - veganism/vegetarianism is the area where I would expect to see younger people making more sacrifices than their elders. Fast fashion, perhaps not.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption
^
This part, the meat consumption listed comment seems massively wrong.
posted on 8/11/22
The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
Appreciate it's hard to quantify but I think those having a pop at older generations, telling us it's only young people who care, should probably show some data to back it up.
People saying they care, in a survey, is bullsheite data.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption
^
This part, the meat consumption listed comment seems massively wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question.
What part of that don't you understand?
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
The efficacy of electric cars to reduce the impact on climate change is pretty much directly tied to the amount of electricity we can generate as renewable. As long as we're not renewable, all you're really doing is substituting putting liquid dinosaur into your car, for someone else using it to generate your electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't, you can generate electricity a lot cleaner even with the use of fossil fuels than you can with the direct use of petrol.
Plus 'not renewable' shows such a lack of education about energy production its baffling.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
Fast fashion, motor vehicles used for short journeys, meat consumption... where is the evidence that the next generations are doing anything better than the generations before them?
__________
This comment seemed odd. Is it based off any evidence or facts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh?
It's a question, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 'absolute lie' statement earlier was quite categorical, suggesting you have something more than anecdotal evidence to go on to support the idea that younger people only claim to care about the environment. Do you?
For what it's worth, I only have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, and I think it's silly to construct a narrative of morally good vs morally corrupt generations. We're all wired the same way, all flawed, and all shaped by our ever-shifting culture. I think it's hard to deny the fact that the millennial / Gen-Z culture emphasises threats to the environment more, as well as things like the trend against owning expensive assets in favour of shared economy / digital content. It's also true that marketeers are clever at selling product that appeals to their values without delivering on substance.
Page 9 of 17
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14