Greta Thunberg

[blueinsa]

You started this exchange responding to a post, almost the entire contents of which was a link to a report about the rate of extinctions. Your entire post was a collection of claims that was disproven by the report that I had just linked to, which is why it was obvious that you hadn't even clicked on it, never mind read it. Why are you even responding to me if you're not going to even do me the common courtesy of looking at what I posted? And you then admitted as much in your very next post that not only did you not look at the evidence I posted, but that you would refuse to do so on principle. And then you come here now claiming to be the one that wants to debate and discuss. It's laughable mate.

I told you i had not read it but i have read similar and plenty of others.

I agree that mankind has had an impact and that change needs to happen.

I told you that needs to be led by government and through legislation the world over.

We differ in that i dont think its solely man made, its natural earth cycle in play as well and i dont think the are facing extinction as a species or as a planet anytime soon either.

If you can accept all of that we can have a discussion, agree on many things but not on others.

If not then so be it.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I told you i had not read it but i have read similar and plenty of others.

I agree that mankind has had an impact and that change needs to happen.

I told you that needs to be led by government and through legislation the world over.

We differ in that i dont think its solely man made, its natural earth cycle in play as well and i dont think the are facing extinction as a species or as a planet anytime soon either.

If you can accept all of that we can have a discussion, agree on many things but not on others.

If not then so be it.

Okay, let's try again. I'll try and be civil ;)

You say you've read similar, but none of the things you mentioned here have anything to do with with report I posted. It was nothing to do with climate change, it was about the number of species going extinct and the extent of human responsibility for that. It compared the current rate of extinction with what they described as the 'background' level of extinction, which is what you'd expect historically with no human intervention. It at no point suggested that climate change was the sole cause of mass extinctions, but it does blame the whole scope of human activity.

I've said in this very thread that the responsibility to do something about climate change (and plastic pollution) should fall on those most able to do something about it, which is governments and large companies, not on individuals. However, when governments and big companies do something about it, there's no getting around the fact that it will affect everyone, because large companies will pass their costs on to everyone and governments' main tools are taxation, regulation or laws, all of which will probably result in higher prices for things. However, this would obviously be temporary, because I'm confident in capitalism's ability to find cheaper solutions if they have no other option. As I said earlier in the thread, if you made Tesco responsible for the full cost of recycling their packaging, they'd come up with more easily recyclable packaging tomorrow. But as I said, this isn't what I was discussing on the thread, I was discussing animal extinction.

Your other argument would depend on what you mean by 'solely man made.' Because I don't think anyone has ever argued that there's no natural component of climate change, but using that to deflect from man's contribution is like saying that engine failure wasn't the only cause of the plane crash, because gravity also played a part. This is why I'm slightly confused by your argument, because you seem to accept that something needs to be done, just not by individuals, but then also seem to be denying large parts of the problem.

 

[blueinsa]

Okay, let's try again. I'll try and be civil ;)

You say you've read similar, but none of the things you mentioned here have anything to do with with report I posted. It was nothing to do with climate change, it was about the number of species going extinct and the extent of human responsibility for that. It compared the current rate of extinction with what they described as the 'background' level of extinction, which is what you'd expect historically with no human intervention. It at no point suggested that climate change was the sole cause of mass extinctions, but it does blame the whole scope of human activity.

I've said in this very thread that the responsibility to do something about climate change (and plastic pollution) should fall on those most able to do something about it, which is governments and large companies, not on individuals. However, when governments and big companies do something about it, there's no getting around the fact that it will affect everyone, because large companies will pass their costs on to everyone and governments' main tools are taxation, regulation or laws, all of which will probably result in higher prices for things. However, this would obviously be temporary, because I'm confident in capitalism's ability to find cheaper solutions if they have no other option. As I said earlier in the thread, if you made Tesco responsible for the full cost of recycling their packaging, they'd come up with more easily recyclable packaging tomorrow. But as I said, this isn't what I was discussing on the thread, I was discussing animal extinction.

Your other argument would depend on what you mean by 'solely man made.' Because I don't think anyone has ever argued that there's no natural component of climate change, but using that to deflect from man's contribution is like saying that engine failure wasn't the only cause of the plane crash, because gravity also played a part. This is why I'm slightly confused by your argument, because you seem to accept that something needs to be done, just not by individuals, but then also seem to be denying large parts of the problem.

Deforestation is the number one in all this for me.

Not only habitat for species but also oxygen for the planet to breath and government needs to 100%, the world over legislate to put a stop to it. Not interested in carbon neutral replanting etc as an excuse any longer, just stop cutting the lifeblood of us all down at the rates we are.

On that point i will 100% agree with you.

I worked as a manager for Tesco for over 2 years and if you even knew the picture on waste it would make you cry i promise you and spot on, legislation on waste and packaging for the companies involved would stop it immediately. Not some bag tax on consumer, the companies have to pay the price for their business and when they do, they waste and the packaging will change overnight.

Again, 100% agree with you.

See, we can debate civilly when the tone is altered ;-)

 

[I'm With Stupid]

 

[Chippy_boy]

So long as you are right, no problem then (unless it continues to accelerate & millions die).

If however, you are wrong, unfortunate but hey ho.

But not unfortunate for me, so no problem.

 

[Chippy_boy]

But you seem to object to them using the word extinction. The word extinction is generally used in relation to Extinction Rebellion, which is so named because the second of their stated aims is to oppose biodiversity loss (i.e. animal and plant extinctions). While plenty of extinctions have been caused by hunting, by far the biggest cause of animal endangerment nowadays is habitat loss, which is caused by cutting down forest to make way for agriculture. Hell, right at this very time, I'm sitting in a city with a dangerous level of pollution. The reason for this is that in Indonesia, vast swathes of land are being cleared by people looking to make a quick buck from palm oil, and the cheapest method of doing it is to burn the land. It's not a coincidence that animals like orangutans then have nowhere to live and schools in Kuala Lumpur hundreds of miles away are having to close because it's not safe for kids to walk to school.

And of course they are wanting to grow palm oil for bio-diesel. Precisely my point.

This is the problem with the - we'd better act now, "just in case" mentality - actions have consequences and often unexpected and undesirable consequences. Action on climate change is not "free".

Has anyone actually considered the amount of money, time and effort that has been spent on climate research? Not to mention the absolutely staggeringly VAST amount of money being spend on re-orienting an entire planet's energy needs away from carbon-burning towards non-carbon sources?

I am guessing we're into trillions of dollars. Now I am not suggesting none of that should have been spent - of course not. Clearly we needed to do something.

But imagine just for one moment that we'd instead spent 1/10th of that money on a world-wide concerted effort to eradicate all cancers by say 2040? How many hundreds of millions of lives could be saved?

 

[hilts]

And of course they are wanting to grow palm oil for bio-diesel. Precisely my point.

This is the problem with the - we'd better act now, "just in case" mentality - actions have consequences and often unexpected and undesirable consequences. Action on climate change is not "free".

Has anyone actually considered the amount of money, time and effort that has been spent on climate research? Not to mention the absolutely staggeringly VAST amount of money being spend on re-orienting an entire planet's energy needs away from carbon-burning towards non-carbon sources?

I am guessing we're into trillions of dollars. Now I am not suggesting none of that should have been spent - of course not. Clearly we needed to do something.

But imaging just for one moment that we'd instead spent 1/10th of that money on a world-wide concerted effort to eradicate all cancers by say 2040? How many hundreds of millions of lives could be saved?

Yeah the world doesn’t take cancer seriously at all, not a lot of money spent on it haha. I do like the idea of having 100’s of millions more humans floating about consuming stuff on a thread about the enviroment.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yeah the world doesn’t take cancer seriously at all, not a lot of money spent on it haha. I do like the idea of having 100’s of millions more humans floating about consuming stuff on a thread about the enviroment.

Perhaps you're right. Maybe killing people is the best solution.

 

[hilts]

Perhaps you're right. Maybe killing people is the best solution.

Don’t burn them though:-)

 

[blueinsa]

Perhaps you're right. Maybe killing people is the best solution.

@Vic has been onto this formulae for a while now to be fair.