[Pants-of-dog]

While some people seem to not like these protesters, no one seems to be able to explain how the protesters are wrong.

[JohnRawls]

While some people seem to not like these protesters, no one seems to be able to explain how the protesters are wrong.

They are not exactly wrong but the problem is that they have no concrete solutions/demands.

If you are going to consider going Carbon Neutral in 5-10 years or going No Coal/Oil/Gas then those are really unreasonable demands in most situations. It is doable but the damage this will cause to the economy and peoples livelyhoods will be enormous. The only reason we would want to implement this straight away is if there was some kind of apocalyptic event ongoing right now otherwise. And there are no signs that the environment gonna collapse all of a sudden.

[late]

They are not exactly wrong but the problem is that they have no concrete solutions/demands.

If you are going to consider going Carbon Neutral in 5-10 years or going No Coal/Oil/Gas then those are really unreasonable demands in most situations. It is doable but the damage this will cause to the economy and peoples livelyhoods will be enormous. The only reason we would want to implement this straight away is if there was some kind of apocalyptic event ongoing right now otherwise. And there are no signs that the environment gonna collapse all of a sudden.

There have been "concrete" solutions for decades.

No, it's happening slowly, and you don't want to be bothered.

Ask only what the country can do for you...

[Pants-of-dog]

They are not exactly wrong but the problem is that they have no concrete solutions/demands.

If you are going to consider going Carbon Neutral in 5-10 years or going No Coal/Oil/Gas then those are really unreasonable demands in most situations. It is doable but the damage this will cause to the economy and peoples livelyhoods will be enormous. The only reason we would want to implement this straight away is if there was some kind of apocalyptic event ongoing right now otherwise. And there are no signs that the environment gonna collapse all of a sudden.

Can you provide evidence that they are actually demanding that?

Also, please provide evidence that it would cause economic havoc to be carbon neutral in ten years.

[maz]

You know exactly what it means, but you don't want to accept that you might be part of the problem, or that it might take change, on your part.

Well, according to Pants-of-dog, I don't know what a bunch of gibberish like "Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it" means. I really don't know what it means. Does it have something to do with the Koch Brothers or something, and what does it have to do with global warming?

While some people seem to not like these protesters, no one seems to be able to explain how the protesters are wrong.

No one likes being lectured to and screamed at by a bunch of spoiled and hysterical teenaged girls who think the world is going to end it 12 years.

[Truth To Power]

While some people seem to not like these protesters, no one seems to be able to explain how the protesters are wrong.

They are wrong in that there is self-evidently no climate crisis and no climate emergency, nor will there ever be one caused by CO2 from fossil fuel consumption.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, according to Pants-of-dog, I don't know what a bunch of gibberish like "Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it" means. I really don't know what it means. Does it have something to do with the Koch Brothers or something, and what does it have to do with global warming?

Well, if you would like to explain their argument and then show how it is incorrect, I am all ears.

[JohnRawls]

Can you provide evidence that they are actually demanding that?

Also, please provide evidence that it would cause economic havoc to be carbon neutral in ten years.

I mean, it is obvious if you syphon money to make the economy green then obviously other industries will suffer like NHS/Medicare, salaries for government workers of any sort, military etc Yes it will produce jobs but it will require funding. This funding will come from either redestributing current incomes in to green energy OR more taxes. Currently the main polluters in the classical sense are outside of the US/EU. Massive industry has moved to Asia because of their cheap manpower. We have OIL industry left but they won't be able to fund the green revolution alone if we tax them. Other fields that we can tax has no real justification. Finance? I mean they are not exactly direct polluters. Tech companies? I mean, they are pretty green already compared to anybody else.

[Pants-of-dog]

I mean, it is obvious if you syphon money to make the economy green then obviously other industries will suffer like NHS/Medicare, salaries for government workers of any sort, military etc Yes it will produce jobs but it will require funding. This funding will come from either redestributing current incomes in to green energy OR more taxes. Currently the main polluters in the classical sense are outside of the US/EU. Massive industry has moved to Asia because of their cheap manpower. We have OIL industry left but they won't be able to fund the green revolution alone if we tax them. Other fields that we can tax has no real justification. Finance? I mean they are not exactly direct polluters. Tech companies? I mean, they are pretty green already compared to anybody else.

I asked you for evidence. I did not ask you for your unsupported ideas about what you think some governments might be planning.

Let us start with the simple claim: that someone is proposing to end fossil fuel use in ten years.

Who is proposing that? What exactly was the proposal? Did they mean the whole world, or the USA, or whatever country they live in?

[JohnRawls]

I asked you for evidence. I did not ask you for your unsupported ideas about what you think some governments might be planning.

Let us start with the simple claim: that someone is proposing to end fossil fuel use in ten years.

Who is proposing that? What exactly was the proposal? Did they mean the whole world, or the USA, or whatever country they live in?

What evidence do you need? Research? It is probably possible to find research for anti-global warming action and pro-global warming action. You know that yourself.

As for proposals. Wasn't my point that they don't really have concrete demands 2 posts ago? I know of only the most radical demands that pop up once in a while on TV which is, as i mentioned, a bit unreasonable. There was the Green new deal by AOC. Its spread out but mostly the trend is similar in many countries regarding this: no concrete reasonable demands, sometimes overblown demands, relatively little support for the green movement in general.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, you said they had no concrete proposals.

Then you said they wanted to end fossil fuel use in ten years.

Now, it is possible that you are contradicting yourself, so I would like to know where you got the idea that they were either not proposing anything, or proposing what you claimed they are.

So, can you provide a link or something?

[JohnRawls]

Yes, you said they had no concrete proposals.

Then you said they wanted to end fossil fuel use in ten years.

Now, it is possible that you are contradicting yourself, so I would like to know where you got the idea that they were either not proposing anything, or proposing what you claimed they are.

So, can you provide a link or something?

Its okay if you find it contradictory, perhaps I didn't phrase it correct but I have no clue how to phrase it then. Either there are no proposals or the proposals are unreasonable? Buts its the same thing that i said...

As for evidence: New Green Deal -> Carbon Neutral by 2030? Actually even 100% renewable by 2030? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
UK to try to reach almost 0 Carbon emissions by 2050? This is better compared to AOC idea but still very unlikely.
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, EU, France, Germany, Ireland all have the greens proposing carbon neutrality by 2050. In Sweden, finalnd and norway they want to do it by 2035-2040.

The only reasonable country i know is perhaps Japan. They want to achieve 0 Carbon emissions by 2100. This is perhaps realistic. As i understand they want to put it as a goal for their economy.

[maz]

Well, if you would like to explain their argument and then show how it is incorrect, I am all ears.

Greta doesn't really have argument about the climate, other than regurgitating some IMF/UN policy papers.

She has said that we have to listen to the climate scientists, which have historically been wrong throughout the decades, and to dismantle "colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression."

She says that we have to tear down these systems but does not say what we have to replace them with.

But no one has explained what "colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression."
means yet so I'll just have to assume.

I guess that means that predominately white Western nations need to reduce their standards of living so that countries like India can, presumably continue to pollute in order to build their infrastructure. At least that is what appears to be suggested in one of her earlier articles.

It is a completely ridiculous suggestion and it also does not explain how we will solve global warming let alone address pollution.

Greta Thunberg: The rebellion has begun

Countries like Sweden and the UK need to start reducing emissions by at least 15% every year. And that is so that we can stay below a 2-degree warming target. Now the IPCC says that we have to aim for 1,5 degrees. So we can only imagine what that means. You would think every one of our leaders and the media would be talking about nothing else — but no one ever mentions it. Nor does anyone ever mention anything about the greenhouse gases already locked in the system, nor that air pollution is hiding a warming, so when we stop burning fossil fuels, we already have an extra 0,5 to 1,1 degrees celsius guaranteed.

Nor does hardly anyone ever mention that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, with about 200 species going extinct every single day.

Furthermore, does no one ever speak about the aspect of equity, or climate justice, clearly stated everywhere in the Paris agreement and the Kyoto protocol, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris agreement work, on a global scale. That means that rich countries need to get down to zero emissions, within 6–12 years, so that people in poorer countries can heighten their standard of living by building some of the infrastructures that we have already built. Such as roads, hospitals, electricity, schools, and clean drinking water. Because how can we expect countries like India or Nigeria to care about the climate crisis if we, who already have everything, don’t care even a second about it or our actual commitments to the Paris agreement?

[Pants-of-dog]

Its okay if you find it contradictory, perhaps I didn't phrase it correct but I have no clue how to phrase it then. Either there are no proposals or the proposals are unreasonable? Buts its the same thing that i said...

As for evidence: New Green Deal -> Carbon Neutral by 2030? Actually even 100% renewable by 2030? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
UK to try to reach almost 0 Carbon emissions by 2050? This is better compared to AOC idea but still very unlikely.
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, EU, France, Germany, Ireland all have the greens proposing carbon neutrality by 2050. In Sweden, finalnd and norway they want to do it by 2035-2040.

The only reasonable country i know is perhaps Japan. They want to achieve 0 Carbon emissions by 2100. This is perhaps realistic. As i understand they want to put it as a goal for their economy.

Please note that these are not necessarily the demands of the protesters.

Anyway, looking at the GND proposed by US politicians, the demands do not seem unreasonable. The most demanding, to make all electricity production green in the next ten years, is doable. The Hoover Dam took five years to build, so building several dams, nuclear reactors, and wind farms is not impossible.

If you want to wait until 2100, please note that sea level rise is projected to get as high as 1.5m by then. The economic impact of that would make the “unreasonable” demands of the Green New Deal look like pocket change.

[JohnRawls]

Please note that these are not necessarily the demands of the protesters.

Anyway, looking at the GND proposed by US politicians, the demands do not seem unreasonable. The most demanding, to make all electricity production green in the next ten years, is doable. The Hoover Dam took five years to build, so building several dams, nuclear reactors, and wind farms is not impossible.

If you want to wait until 2100, please note that sea level rise is projected to get as high as 1.5m by then. The economic impact of that would make the “unreasonable” demands of the Green New Deal look like pocket change.

I did say it is doable. Problem is what is the cost.

Would you agree to a 20-30% decrease in salary or lets say privatisation of healthcare(Full cut to Medicare/aid if you are from US) to achieve Carbon Neutrality?

[Pants-of-dog]

I did say it is doable. Problem is what is the cost.

Would you agree to a 20-30% decrease in salary or lets say privatisation of healthcare(Full cut to Medicare/aid if you are from US) to achieve Carbon Neutrality?

So, what would be the cost for the USA to implement the Green New Deal?

Or, if you wish to discuss another country, please use that country as an example.

Another question that would need to be asked would be: how much do you gain?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Please note that these are not necessarily the demands of the protesters.

What are Extinction Rebellion’s demands?
The UK group has three core demands:

1) Tell the truth
The government must tell the truth about the scale of the ecological crisis by declaring a climate emergency, “working with other groups and institutions to communicate the urgent need for change”.

2) Net zero emissions by 2025
The UK must drastically cut its greenhouse gas emissions, hitting net zero by 2025.

3) Citizens’ assembly
The government must create a citizens’ assembly to hear evidence and devise policy to tackle the climate crisis. Citizens’ assemblies bring together ordinary people to investigate, discuss and make recommendations on how to respond, in this case, to the ecological emergency.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -emergency

That is a truly drastic cut that would demand a complete realignment of the economy, in such a short period.

[Pants-of-dog]

2025 is a bad ass goal.

I do not know enough about the UK situation to determine how feasible it is.

I can not imagine how the UK could have net zero emissions without significant changes to the economy.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

While keeping a productive economy, it's not feasible. You cannot build enough nuclear power stations that quickly; to build up all the generating capacity needed to replace all the gas currently used from hydroelectric (for which there's little more available - any significant extra use would be a different kind of environmental disaster), wind or solar is not feasible (because the world isn't producing that much turbines or solar panels (and solar is not a good solution for the UK, which needs most power in the winter and is northerly), let alone replacing all the gas heating, and petrol/diesel cars, and making brand new electric trucks.

You might do it if you banned private transport, trashed the cars, forced people to move into houses at maximum occupancy (say, one third of the current total) and converted them while leaving the others empty, shut down all unnecessary shared buildings (restaurants, pubs, cinemas, theatres, sports halls, most shops, the businesses that will rapidly go bust and so on). It'd make fighting WW2 look like a bunch of dilettantes who didn't take it seriously. I suppose the Brexit mob would at least get their wish of all immigrants leaving, because no-one would want to live here.

[BeesKnee5]

Agree 2025 is impossible.

Just to get everyone's Central heating and cooking off fossil fuel gas would be a non starter in that timeframe. Transport zero chance as well.

Electricity I'm more optimistic on but still it would be cheating by importing bio fuel timber from abroad in ships using dirty fuel.