Jump to content

Greta Thunberg's Groupie


Axl's Agony Aunt

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

None of these countries are especially big offenders either. In fact most European countries are environmental exemplar. Many of them lead the way in green issues. 

She is focusing on the innocent countries and ignoring the culprits. It makes absolutely no sense. 

Don't be such a baby. She is going where she can. If she is invited to USA to protest there, and she can do it, I am sure she will. Besides, it makes sense to start by cleaning up our own mess first. Jeez. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Don't be such a baby. She is going where she can. If she is invited to USA to protest there, and she can do it, I am sure she will. Besides, it makes sense to start by cleaning up our own mess first. Jeez. 

I have two massive coloured bins in the back and pay 5 pence for plastic bags. I have to drink beer at the cricket from a wafer thin organic cup like a woofter. I'll not be lectured by some silly girl, but If she is willing to take my glass bottles away to be recycled by all means...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have two massive coloured bins in the back and pay 5 pence for plastic bags. I have to drink beer at the cricket from a wafer thin organic cup like a woofter. I'll not be lectured by some silly girl, but If she is willing to take my glass bottles away to be recycled by all means...

Jeez Dies, next youll be making casual mentions about cancelling billions of religious people due to a woefully inadequate understanding of the complexities of society. I mean, get with the program of rational thought. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially I agree with this, especially the passages quoted,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6957427/I-admire-Greta-Thunbergs-idealism-politicians-lose-reason-climate-change.html

Quote

 

In the first place, the Swedish activist is hardly being fair when she describes this country’s achievements in reducing carbon emissions as ‘beyond absurd’.

Britain has arguably done more than any other country. According to official figures — which Ms Thunberg disputes without offering much rationale — we have delivered a 44 per cent reduction in our carbon emissions on 1990 levels.

The UK is the first developed country to have made an undertaking to cut its emissions by 2050 by 80 per cent of what they were 60 years earlier.

Whereas hundreds of coal-fired power stations are being built in China, and a few are sprouting up even in Germany, they are due to be phased out in this country by 2025.

The Environment Secretary spoke in confessional mode of his sense of ‘guilt’ that his generation had ‘not done nearly enough to deal with the problem of climate change’

The process has been so helter-skelter that cock-ups have occurred. Drax in North Yorkshire (which supplies energy to four million homes) now burns wood rather than coal. Unfortunately, some of this wood comes from felling virgin hardwood forests in Virginia.

The truth is that the UK produces a minuscule amount of the world’s carbon emissions, and one which is falling relatively quickly, not least with the help of hard-pressed consumers, whose energy bills contain substantial ‘green taxes’.

Meanwhile, China — among other big economies, including the United States — is doing far less to address its enormous emissions. 

Why doesn’t Ms Thunberg go to Beijing to wag a reproving finger at those hatchet-faced mandarins who are throwing up new power stations?

This question was put to her by Nick Robinson on Tuesday’s Today Programme, and she didn’t have a better answer than it is a long way to travel by train, and she hasn’t been invited. I wonder why.

Greta Thunberg was unfair, too, to claim Britain has a ‘mind-blowing historical carbon debt’ because of its industrial emissions in the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution. 

But that happened when no one realised the possible damage. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a 16 year old girl. How utterly stupid to reproach her for not giving a solution but instead listening to scientists. Apparently the article's writer doesn't think that's sensible? Why not? Who should we listen to then? Politicians? The industry? Companies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lio said:

She's a 16 year old girl. How utterly stupid to reproach her for not giving a solution but instead listening to scientists. Apparently the article's writer doesn't think that's sensible? Why not? Who should we listen to then? Politicians? The industry? Companies?

Yes when it comes to Britain, as, as the article points out, Britain has done much to reduce carbon emissions and ''is the first developed country to have made an undertaking to cut its emissions by 2050 by 80 per cent of what they were 60 years earlier''. She is not only attacking one of the more innocent countries, but one of the countries who leads the way on green issues. It is grossly unfair. 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yes when it comes to Britain, as, as the article points out, Britain has done much to reduce carbon emissions and ''is the first developed country to have made an undertaking to cut its emissions by 2050 by 80 per cent of what they were 60 years earlier''. She is not only attacking one of the more innocent countries, but one of the countries who leads the way on green issues. It is grossly unfair. 

So you think we should listen to politicians on climate but ignore them on Brexit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Greta Thunberg is attacking UK in particular, just 'touring' here like musicians do.

Because musicians come to Britain and talk 'rebellion against the "system"', like Guns did, doesn't mean they're attacking any country in particular, just criticising the 'system' in general. 

As generally agreed amongst you, the UK is doing more than most, but can do better, and hopefully if it does it may inspire other countries, although I'm not optimistic - countries ruled by greedy and ruthless despots don't even look after their own people, let alone care for the planet's future!

 

Edited by Axl's Agony Aunt
d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, Id be using a diy composting toilet if my co-op would allow me to. I grow wholly lambs ear in the event that I get to start using it as tp. :lol: I re-heat meals over a beeswax candle. So she makes perfect sense to me. In a world where its iconoclastic to amplify climate science, she's our iconoclast! :headbang:

Maybe I could be her sail boat captain so that she can travel to all those countries?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I think that the majority of the house of commons are pro EU yes.

Probably about three quarters to two thirds proceeding the 2016 referendum but it is more nuanced than that being that there has been a referendum and it becomes therefore a question of how one deals with the results of the referendum. Depending on the MP it either should be very much respected (hard Brexit), quasi-respected (soft-Brexit, of which there are many different variants!), re-run (i.e., second referendum) or cancelled-out. 

''Pro EU'' is also a bit of a generalised term, in that it could even include centrist soft-Eurosceptics. 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

If politicians had kept their wits when meeting the 16-year-old Swede, they’d have pointed out that destroying capitalism would solve nothing

The “basic problem”, Greta Thunberg told MPs and campaigners in her speech at parliament this week, “is that basically nothing is being done to halt — or even slow — climate and ecological breakdown”.

As Thunberg was explaining to fawning legislators how “basic” the situation supposedly is, Extinction Rebellion campaigners continued to block the streets, glueing themselves to public transport for headlines and demanding that democratically elected British politicians yield to their demands to scrap the existing economic system.

At the peak of Gretamania — and it was like a medieval religious event or a late 1960s hippie “happening” at Westminster when the 16-year-old campaigner arrived at Portcullis House this week — it is judged heretical to question anything the prophet says. But here goes.

Thunberg may be a well-intentioned and eloquent campaigner, a walking riposte to all those who until recently claimed that the young are apathetic. But that does not make her right or imply any duty for policymakers to do exactly what she says: that is, to destroy the successful western market economy in line with her vision of the Earth being consumed soon by a ball of fire followed by floods.

At the root of it her central claim, made repeatedly, that “nothing” is being done is demonstrably false. For several decades, western governments have aimed policy on energy at tackling this challenge. In Britain, emissions have fallen by 38 per cent since 1990. Indeed, almost unnoticed amid the carnival atmosphere of the climate protests and in contrast to the hysteria, an encouraging piece of news landed a few days ago that should have introduced a little balance into the debate. Last weekend, over Easter, Britain burnt no coal in its power production for three days — the longest coal-free period since before the First World War.

The complex story of Britain’s abandonment of high-polluting coal as a source of fuel is one of the great success stories of modern British history. It stands as a counter to the claim that in this country we have done nothing.

Perhaps because the shift from coal is so rarely mentioned we tend to take it for granted that it happened at all. Yet it happened because a series of decisions were made, some wrong, others right, that gradually ended our reliance on the black fuel that in 1950 dominated the economy and energy production.

Britain’s industrial revolution and rapid expansion of access to electricity had been built on mining the rich seams of coal underneath our feet. By the 1950s it had covered our buildings in a thick layer of soot and was causing death by air pollution.

Coal had to go, and it did. In 1950, the UK consumed and shipped 206 million tonnes of it. By 2017 that was down to 15 million tonnes.

The switch to gas, which still pollutes although much less so, was driven by a combination of market mechanisms, sensitivity to supply and price, and by considered government action. Renewables are now generating around 30 per cent of UK electricity too.

The historian David Edgerton, in The Rise and Fall of the British Nation, his refreshing account of the 20th century, charts how the move from coal was made and why it took decades. Along the way there were policy missteps and human disruption. There was the botched dash for overly expensive nuclear in the 1960s, and there was the deep pain experienced in coal-mining areas as production ended.

That is how public policy develops and history happens. That is how markets respond to incentives, and how improvements are made imperfectly, unevenly, over decades, involving trial, experiment, mistake and success, all hopefully attempted with democratic consent.

Incidentally, the next phase of reducing reliance on fossil fuels in the UK will be tougher, as we may be asked to sacrifice our gas boilers, which we love.

The market helps though. On transport, it looks as though the forces of creative destruction, in the car industry at least, are limbering up. Market competition, pressure from politicians, and consumer demand look likely to produce a decisive shift to electric over the next ten to 20 years.

Thunberg and her allies reject the gradualist analysis in favour of a “black and white” vision of doom if there is not total change in one go. It is mesmerising, alarmist nonsense.

“The main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies,” claimed Thunberg at Westminster. The C02 reduction was instead down to the EU, she claimed. “A 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations.”

That is bad history, as Edgerton and other academic studies show. It is also a misleading statement typical of the absolutism prevalent in Green populism, manifesting in a tendency to present complex problems as always having simple and immediate answers.

“I don’t like compromising because it’s either this or that,” Thunberg told The Times this week during her trip to London. But compromise is essential in politics and human society. Instead, the climate radicals demand a cleansing, purifying complete revolution. Only the instant destruction of capitalism (and its replacement with something nicer but as yet unspecified) will save the planet from destruction, wrote one of Thunberg’s more excitable supporters.

Put to one side for a moment the reality that the destruction of global capitalism and the end of markets is an epically terrible idea. The extension of market mechanisms — private property, free enterprise, price discovery via market competition, the accumulation and deployment of capital — has been a boon for humanity, helping to improve life expectancy and lifting billions out of poverty.

In the process, mankind is polluting the planet. Even on the precautionary principle it makes sense to clean up the mess and aim to leave a legacy.

Yet proportion matters. Concern for the environment should not mean we cease to think critically and calmly. Our descendants will not thank us if we wreck the economy and reverse prosperity. The panic recommended by Thunberg — and the kneejerk policy that would follow — is an irresponsible way to approach a complex problem. We should be alert. We should take action. We are.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/actually-greta-we-re-doing-plenty-to-slow-climate-change-rsf93f7js

Another article I agree with - especially the passages I have highlighted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/actually-greta-we-re-doing-plenty-to-slow-climate-change-rsf93f7js

Another article I agree with - especially the passages I have highlighted. 

A bunch of affronted assholes on the spectrum who, rather than understand the message she is presenting, decides to engage a 16 year old schoolgirl on technicalities. Jeez. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

A bunch of affronted assholes on the spectrum who, rather than understand the message she is presenting, decides to engage a 16 year old schoolgirl on technicalities. Jeez. 

You are jeezing more than a 1950s small town American. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's analyse these ''technicalities''.

A/ She is historically incorrect and unfairly anachronistic (e.g., industrial revolution).

B/ She is attacking the wrong country. 

C/ She might even be ''biting the hand that feeds'' seeing that Britain has done more than the majority of states at combating climate change.

These are big technicalities indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She really is impressive. I am kind of awestruck by her. At such a young age! As a father of two young girls myself, who, like all parents, face various problems and issues when raising girls to live in modern society, I wonder what will become of my daughters? Having no ambitions, I still have this pipedream them will grow up and be able to annoy @DieselDaisyjust a little bit at least.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎25‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 8:47 PM, DieselDaisy said:

So let's analyse these ''technicalities''.

A/ She is historically incorrect and unfairly anachronistic (e.g., industrial revolution).

B/ She is attacking the wrong country. 

C/ She might even be ''biting the hand that feeds'' seeing that Britain has done more than the majority of states at combating climate change.

These are big technicalities indeed. 

I still think you're wrong about GT in GB. 

It's like if the Pope visits Britain and criticises world war, and includes Britain; or if Guns visit Britain and criticise censorship, and include Britain.

I think I can remember Skid Row's Seb Bach lambasting Brent Council for trying to censor them on stage supporting Guns at Wembley back in '93. 

I think people are too local-centric  a lot of the time, taking offense at global debates including them.

For example, if I say I prefer Bon Scott AC/DC to Brian Johnson AC/DC, it's down to my personal taste of their vocals, not because I prefer Oz to Geordieland!

Or because I preferred American metal to British wasn't to do with politics.

Greta's got a global message, and will probably take it to anywhere that's safe and accessible. Britain is included in that, but not a special case. 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

I still think you're wrong about GT in GB. 

It's like if the Pope visits Britain and criticises world war, and includes Britain; or if Guns visit Britain and criticise censorship, and include Britain.

I think I can remember Skid Row's Seb Bach lambasting Brent Council for trying to censor them on stage supporting Guns at Wembley back in '93. 

I think people are too local-centric  a lot of the time, taking offense at global debates including them.

For example, if I say I prefer Bon Scott AC/DC to Brian Johnson AC/DC, it's down to my personal taste of their vocals, not because I prefer Oz to Geordieland!

Or because I preferred American metal to British wasn't to do with politics.

Greta's got a global message, and will probably take it to anywhere that's safe and accessible. Britain is included in that, but not a special case. 

Well I prefer Bon and I live in Geordieland. But I like Brian also. 

  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...