• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stout said:
That was actually a post about cow farts but yes, processing as well as transportation do factor into the equation. We've done packaging previously on this thread but we can revisit it and a now that we've touched on eating locally maybe it's time to raise the topic of eating seasonally.

Given that there's a lot of support for Thunberg, who want's to totally upend the developed world it shouldn't be to much of an ask to ask her supporters (and young people) to not only eat locally but by seasonal local vegetables and revive the lost art of preserving then for the winter. I'll bet your parents used to do this.
Click to expand...
Yes
Agee jars.
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
I support her activism. I support her efforts to change people's thinking. I support her reliance on science.

I'm trying to think of a conservative activist with a global audience who tried to do promote environmentalism. It might help us put Thunberg's activism in context.

Anybody else come up with a name?
Click to expand...

Given that one of the core tenets of conservatism in theory should be* to maintain the status quo, advocating change would tend to run counter to that.



* - Modern large 'C' Conservatism isn't like that at all IMO. It is in favour of radical change to shake up the status quo (which is leading society to hell in a handcart) which would lead to an instatement of Conservative values to save society.
 
Stout said:
That was actually a post about cow farts but yes, processing as well as transportation do factor into the equation. We've done packaging previously on this thread but we can revisit it and a now that we've touched on eating locally maybe it's time to raise the topic of eating seasonally.

Given that there's a lot of support for Thunberg, who want's to totally upend the developed world it shouldn't be to much of an ask to ask her supporters (and young people) to not only eat locally but by seasonal local vegetables and revive the lost art of preserving then for the winter. I'll bet your parents used to do this.
Click to expand...

At the absolute extreme, yes, these are the kinds of steps that would be necessary.

OTOH most people could significantly reduce their carbon footprint (and by significantly I mean by tens of percent) by:

  • Running a more fuel efficient vehicle and/or shift to less carbon intensive modes of transport
  • Taking steps to reduce travel, professionally and recreationally
  • Improving the thermal performance of your home and workspace
  • The thermostat a couple of degrees closer to ambient temperature
  • Replacing older, less efficient, appliances and lights with modern, more efficient ones
  • Significantly reducing the amount of meat and fish that they eat

None of which means significantly compromising on lifestyle.

It's better that 100% of people reduce their carbon emissions by 20% than 10% of people reduce theirs by 75% and everyone else continues as they are.

All of those steps would also save a significant amount of money over the long term.
 
The Don said:
At the absolute extreme, yes, these are the kinds of steps that would be necessary.

OTOH most people could significantly reduce their carbon footprint (and by significantly I mean by tens of percent) by:

  • Running a more fuel efficient vehicle and/or shift to less carbon intensive modes of transport
  • Taking steps to reduce travel, professionally and recreationally
  • Improving the thermal performance of your home and workspace
  • The thermostat a couple of degrees closer to ambient temperature
  • Replacing older, less efficient, appliances and lights with modern, more efficient ones
  • Significantly reducing the amount of meat and fish that they eat

None of which means significantly compromising on lifestyle.

It's better that 100% of people reduce their carbon emissions by 20% than 10% of people reduce theirs by 75% and everyone else continues as they are.

All of those steps would also save a significant amount of money over the long term.
Click to expand...

The highlighted items could come at considerable expense that the average person just doesn't have, while the well heeled are buying all the new stuff they want while increasing their carbon footprints and pretty much negating anything the less fortunate might try to do.

Also, the poor people aren't contributing to the travel problem at all.
 
The Don said:
At the absolute extreme, yes, these are the kinds of steps that would be necessary.
Click to expand...

Well this is a thread about Greta Thunberg and there's not much that could be considered too extreme in order to meet her demands.

OTOH most people could significantly reduce their carbon footprint (and by significantly I mean by tens of percent) by:
Click to expand...

All are excellent ideas and I hope the majority of the population is paying attention to them but they're, unfortunately, not enough to stave off this "mass extinction". They're what amounts to status quo and will disappoint Greta however they more accurately reflect the reality that, along with building more renewables, the developed world is going to choose as an acceptable pathway.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
The highlighted items could come at considerable expense that the average person just doesn't have,
Click to expand...
Typical defeatist attitude.

First off, the items you didn't highlight cannot be ignored. Top of the list is the motor vehicle, both for its emissions and expense.

4 years ago I decided it was time to replace my 20 year old gas car (I had just paid a $1000 repair bill, and was dreading the next one). I realized that I could buy a used Nissan Leaf (a car I always wanted but couldn't afford new) for about the same price as a gas car of similar quality. Since then we have had a global pandemic and a big increase in gas prices. My Leaf is saving me money in fuel and maintenance costs, as well as being more convenient and nicer to drive.

I am not the 'average' person - I earn much less than the average wage. If I could go electric on my meager income many others could do too, but very few do. Most people never count up the costs of owning a car, so they don't understand that in the long run an electric car is generally cheaper. It makes good economic sense even if global warming wasn't an issue, especially since a motor vehicle is the second most expensive thing most people own.

Most people in the Western world overeat, and obesity is a huge problem even amongst the 'poor'. Cutting back on meat (as well as high energy processed foods) will save money not only directly but also in reduced medical bills and general well-being. Reducing global warming is just a bonus.

Now on to the highlighted items:-

1. Improving the thermal performance of your home and workspace

This doesn't have to cost a lot, and just like the electric car it saves money in the long run. So why wouldn't you do it?

2. Replacing older, less efficient, appliances and lights with modern, more efficient ones

Older appliances need to be replaced anyway sooner or later. Sensible people plan for it and take the opportunity to buy more efficient products.

There was a time when LED light bulbs were a lot more expensive, making it hard to justify replacing incandescents despite the reduced power consumption and lower maintenance. But that's no longer true. Today they are cheap enough that the price isn't an issue.

I began replacing light bulbs and other appliances with more efficient models many years ago, not to save the environment but simply to save money. Upgrading might a cost bit more to start with, but costs less in the long run. You don't have to be rich to follow that principle. I'm stingier than most and have been living on a shoestring budget for years - but I don't shy from investing in things that will reduce costs in the future. Turns out that often aligns with things that reduce global warming too! Which when you think about it make perfect sense.

Out of 6 items you managed to highlight 2 that you say 'could come at considerable expense that the average person just doesn't have'. But in many cases that's not true. The average person has plenty of money to spend, they just don't spend it wisely.

Exactly what are you trying to prove here? That nobody can afford it so there's no point trying? But that is demonstrably not true, and even you aren't confident enough to apply it to more than 2 of the 6 items. It almost feels like you just want an excuse to not do anything.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
All are excellent ideas and I hope the majority of the population is paying attention to them but they're, unfortunately, not enough to stave off this "mass extinction". They're what amounts to status quo and will disappoint Greta however they more accurately reflect the reality that, along with building more renewables, the developed world is going to choose as an acceptable pathway.
Click to expand...
Yep, 10% is not enough. If that's all we can manage then Greta isn't the only one who will be disappointed.

But it's a start. 10% here, 10% there, and pretty soon you are making a real difference. More importantly it gets the ball rolling. Electric cars are now at 10% of the global fleet. This is recognized as the point at which a new technology usually 'takes off', reaching 90% adoption in a few years.

A few days ago the CEO of Toyota stepped down after admitting that the electric car market is growing much faster than he expected. Immediately after, Toyota announced that they are scrapping their current electrification plans and going for a totally new platform - which probably won't hit showrooms for another 5 to 8 years. Toyota is well behind the curve now, as companies like Tesla and BYD are eating up the market.

Nissan is also in trouble, with sales dropping as they lose out to upstart electric car companies. How ironic that they were the first to get a proper electric car onto the market, then tried to imprison the CEO who had the vision to create it - and now they are struggling to survive. They had the lead and pissed it away by continuing to concentrate on gas cars.

Electric cars are hot now. Any car manufacturer who wants to stay in business has at least one in the pipeline, and those that have a good lineup are doing well. It's past the early 'adopter phase' and will take off rapidly. but we shouldn't forget the role those early adopters had. 10% might not sound like much, and it isn't. But it got the ball rolling. We need that in other areas too.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
The highlighted items could come at considerable expense that the average person just doesn't have, while the well heeled are buying all the new stuff they want while increasing their carbon footprints and pretty much negating anything the less fortunate might try to do.

Also, the poor people aren't contributing to the travel problem at all.
Click to expand...

Properly insulating an attic is very cost effective. In the UK, government grants are available to help the less well off. That's an excellent start.

At least here in the UK you can, for example, buy a more efficient clothes drier for less than £300. It could pay for itself in a couple of years.

edited to add....

Many poor(er) people are contributing to the travel problem because they have to travel significant distances in less efficient vehicles to get to their (multiple ?) jobs.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
The highlighted items could come at considerable expense that the average person just doesn't have, while the well heeled are buying all the new stuff they want while increasing their carbon footprints and pretty much negating anything the less fortunate might try to do.

Also, the poor people aren't contributing to the travel problem at all.
Click to expand...

Dude,

why not try to contribute something positive. It might be that you either don't think climate change is a problem, or not one that can be fixed, or not one that you think should be fixed, but if so why not lay that down as clearly as possible.

I personally think that Greta Thunberg's demands have no hope of being met, for a number of reasons, and also find her being put up as the poster child of climate change to be a little cringe.

But I think it is definitely the case that climate change should be an issue.

When it comes to power generation, I am totally in favour of nuclear power where possible and think that it is pretty disastrous to close down the power plants if the shortfall has to be made-up in burning coal, for example. You can, of course sneer and say, "How are all the poor countries going to build nuclear power plants?" or "what about the radioactive waste?", but you could do that endlessly for any topic at all.

If you wonder how the poor can afford that which will "come at considerable expense that the average person just doesn't have, while the well heeled are buying all the new stuff they want", it might be worth you asking your self why the well-heeled will buy "all the new stuff they want"? Do you think it makes sense for the rich to insulate their homes? Are they doing this to save the planet OR... are they doing it to save some money on fuel? If it is the latter than the problem is not really money, so much as paying for it all at once. It clearly makes sense for governments to subsidize insulation and better heating equipment so that the owners can save money in the long-run.
 
The Don said:
Properly insulating an attic is very cost effective. In the UK, government grants are available to help the less well off. That's an excellent start.

At least here in the UK you can, for example, buy a more efficient clothes drier for less than £300. It could pay for itself in a couple of years.

edited to add....

Many poor(er) people are contributing to the travel problem because they have to travel significant distances in less efficient vehicles to get to their (multiple ?) jobs.
Click to expand...

More work from home would probably help as well.
Same goes for improving public transportation so that people don't need to buy cars.
 
angrysoba said:
More work from home would probably help as well.
Click to expand...

Within the limitations of people's jobs - absolutely.

Obviously it's easier for an office worker to work from home than a waiter, plumber or assembly line worker. Then again if they could work 4 days a week rather than 5, their commute would emit 20% less greenhouse gases (and the savings could be even more if there's less traffic as a result).

angrysoba said:
Same goes for improving public transportation so that people don't need to buy cars.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as the Youtube channel "NotJustBikes" keeps reminding us, designing "mixed use" neighbourhoods where retail and entertainment is within walking/cycling distance of where people live instead of having to drive across town to the hypermarket, mall or out of town entertainment complex.

Doubtless someone will say that because they live in the middle of a prairie, public transport and mixed use neighbourhoods aren't any use to them but that ignores the facts that:

  • Most people in the developed world (and hence the biggest per capita greenhouse gas emitters) live in urban or suburban settings
  • 150 years ago people managed with a horse and buggy because there were small towns with the most of the facilities they needed, the rest came by mail order
  • Many parts of the world used to have much better public transport before the rise of the car so it's hardly unprecedented
 
In a story which could easily be dismissed as virtue signalling, a young British athlete has chosen not to travel to the world championships in Australia because of her concerns for the impact of long haul travel on the environment.

At 16 years old, athlete Innes FitzGerald is racing to help the planet.

The promising long-distance runner has turned down the chance to compete in the World Cross Country Championships.

Her reasoning? The contest is in Australia, thousands of miles from her home in Devon. Innes says she cannot justify flying in a climate crisis.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-64427450

She's realistic about the limited impact of her actions.

"I hope that more athletes will begin to question their choices," says Innes.

"Obviously, I don't expect everybody to behave in the way that I am but I think just doing little bits that they feel that they maybe can do.

"And more high-profile athletes, having such a big media platform, they should use that and talk about the issues."
Click to expand...

She's braver than I would be in her (cross country running) shoes. I would be terrified that a refusal at this stage would lead to being blacklisted in the future. :o
 
The Don said:
In a story which could easily be dismissed as virtue signalling, a young British athlete has chosen not to travel to the world championships in Australia because of her concerns for the impact of long haul travel on the environment.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say she's virtue signalling nor indulging in it's sibling, moral grandstanding as she's actually giving up something that's near and dear to her heart. Virtue signalling/moral grandstanding is cheap and easy. Like that guy I used to work with who like to go on and on about his Prius and how he was saving the planet with it. He snorted at my gas hog (big V6, 13.6 L/100km) and I had to gently remind him that his commute was 10 times what mine was so in the grand scheme of things.

We need more stories like this. I read one a couple of weeks ago about a professional ice climber. dude was complaining that the glaciers he liked to climb were melting and listed off a few exotic locations, comparing them to his "office". The attached comments section pointed out that this dude and his trips to the wilderness were part of the problem and painted him as more of a whiner than anything else.

If this runner wants to attribute her decision to being influenced by Greta Thunberg and her refusal to fly, then that's a win for Thunberg. let's just hope she can stick the flying flounce forever.
 
Some good news:
https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/bp-oil-peak
Last week, BP published its latest Energy Outlook report. Its headline findings should have got much more attention than they did.

BP thinks that global oil demand peaked in 2019. If this is true, it’s a landmark moment in human history.

BP could be terribly wrong. But the important bit isn’t whether the company is correct or not. What’s newsworthy is what this message signals about the energy transition. Even the oil companies have accepted that oil’s future is shrinking, and could fade quickly.

In its report, BP published projections under three scenarios. These are shown in the chart. Its ‘New Mometum’ scenario follows a similar rate of decarbonisation that we’ve seen in recent years – think of it as following the status quo. It then had two more scenarios of increasing climate ambition.

The downward slope of each is different. I’m sure BP hopes we follow the ‘New Momentum’ scenario, while I’ll be pushing for Net Zero. What’s consistent is that in every scenario, global oil demand peaked in 2019.
Click to expand...
 
And don't forget that is just peak demand for oil, we've not reached peak demand for other fuels such as natural gas.
 
I fully get the whole think positively, always look on the bright side of life approach even up to and including the whole sending out positive vibes to help Gaia heal Herself but unfortunately reality often resembles the cartoon Bambi Meets Godzilla.

Cynically speaking I'd say that a bit of the ole greenwashing coming out of BP and I'll check Thunberg's Twitter in a few days to see if she calls it out as such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom