UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.

rietrot

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
9,983
#61
Don't really see the issue? I'd gladly ditch my car if I had access to reliable and efficient mass transit.

Only one that puts me off is high density living as that comes with a decrease in quality of life.
If that is the best way. The market will just sort it out, because that's individual people making decisions for themselves. There's no need to try and manage it top down.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
22,887
#62
Don't really see the issue? I'd gladly ditch my car if I had access to reliable and efficient mass transit.

Only one that puts me off is high density living as that comes with a decrease in quality of life.
Cool.

As long as it's not compulsory. Or the alternative taxed to death. Nor taxpayer money used to fund or subsidise the transport businesses.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
12,165
#63
Cool.

As long as it's not compulsory. Or the alternative taxed to death.
When expanding or building cities I'd just do so around mass transit. Integrate them from the get-go instead of trying to squeeze them in ad hoc where they often lose their appeal/become disruptive.

Pretty good article on how the US and Canada differ on their approach to public transit and how it works in Canada but flops in the US. I have Canadian friend. 34, never driven a car in his life as he has had no need for one.

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
33,573
#64
This is flawed because there is also a huge economic (and humanitarian) consequence of adopting the policies that believers propose.
And what would the economic ( and humanitarian ) consequences be should the believers be proved right ?
 

rietrot

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
9,983
#65
And what would the economic ( and humanitarian ) consequences be should the believers be proved right ?
We all die. So it doesn't really matter, they don't have a fix. If the believers want to be taken more seriously they should stop being hypocrites and come up with something better than carbon taxes.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,279
#68
And what would the economic ( and humanitarian ) consequences be should the believers be proved right ?
I was just pointing out that your argument that we might as well go along with it anyway, regardless of whether you believe that there is an impending catastrophe or not, is not without economic cost and consequences, particularly to third world industrialization. Mitigation at any meaningful level is not cost free - it could literally mean that much of the third world never has the opportunity to develop out of poverty, or that it's delayed for many decades - so if it's wrong it has a cost.
 
Last edited:

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,279
#69
Yes, it's a massive opportunity!
https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/
A lot of what's necessary is simply creating more efficient cities. Less single-occupant vehicles used for commuting (preferably moving away from using private cars at all, as far as possible), more mass/rapid transit (electric) and active modes, higher density living, more walkable cities.

There needs to be agricultural reform, too. It's simply unsustainable. Artificial meat is looking promising, but it's a bit unclear how easily and fast that can be scaled to replace what we have currently.
That's a very optimistic view. Here is a different opinion - https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/30/why-third-world-countries-wont-agree-to
The notion that emission cuts can pay for themselves through increased energy efficiency is at best fanciful and, at worst, a lie.

There are no low-carbon energy technologies available today that can sustain the economic growth rates these countries need to lift their people out of abject poverty, let alone offer Western living standards at anything resembling an affordable cost.
 

rietrot

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
9,983
#70
Completely overall their own life. If you truly believe in climate change you need to move to a rural area and live as a vegetarian subsidence farmer. If you don't you are culpable in destroying the earth.


Or just take the easy way out and kill yourself.
 
Last edited:

The Voice

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
6,938
#72
When expanding or building cities I'd just do so around mass transit. Integrate them from the get-go instead of trying to squeeze them in ad hoc where they often lose their appeal/become disruptive.

Pretty good article on how the US and Canada differ on their approach to public transit and how it works in Canada but flops in the US. I have Canadian friend. 34, never driven a car in his life as he has had no need for one.

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses
Lived in the UK again for almost 3 years now - and still don't have a car. The public transport is so good I doubt I'll need one unless I move out to the country somewhere. Sure, it doesn't always run efficiently - especially when there are strikes, or it snows. But it is also way cheaper than buying and owning a car: monthly instalment if not bought outright, petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT and emissions tax (dependant on age of the vehicle), as well as maintenance costs. Yes, cars are dirt cheap here when compared to SA, but it's all the additional costs that get you.
 

RaptorSA

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
3,321
#73
But I'm unconvinced that this change is anthropogenic.

No-one cares what you're convinced or not convinced by.
Feel free to add to the scientific literature then if you've good such good ideas and studies on why anthropogenic climate change is not a thing.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
16,708
#74
Businesses are inherently lazy and focused on the short term. That's why regulations end up being needed.

I'd rather go with the climate change believers and be wrong, than go with the climate change deniers and be wrong.
And the changes that get made will have long term benefits. It is a great opportunity.

If that is the best way. The market will just sort it out
Sure it will.

Lived in the UK again for almost 3 years now - and still don't have a car. The public transport is so good I doubt I'll need one unless I move out to the country somewhere. Sure, it doesn't always run efficiently - especially when there are strikes, or it snows.
I love it and hate it. But mostly hate it.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
22,887
#75
No-one cares what you're convinced or not convinced by.
True. Thank goodness.

Feel free to add to the scientific literature then if you've good such good ideas and studies on why anthropogenic climate change is not a thing.
Thanks. I feel quite free already.

It might have escaped you that this is also a political issue. And when it comes to voting for parties that push or oppose the AGW line, my vote counts as much as yours.
 

RaptorSA

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
3,321
#76
It might have escaped you that this is also a political issue.
That's exactly what it isn't, at least not the facts... even though people like yourself insist it is.
As for the solution, yes, absolutely political etc., but we're not even able to get to that if people like yourself aren't capable of getting their heads around the fact that the science & facts regarding AGW has nothing to do with politics.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,382
#78
Earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, hurricanes etc

She's trying her best man, but seems she eventually gave up and decided we'll all die together: that's why evolution gave birth to the SJW / soy boy generation.
Evolution gave birth to the science deniers like anti-vaxxers. Nature correcting that specific denigration of human intelligence.

Anti-vaxxers generally seem to deny other sciences as well.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
22,887
#79
That's exactly what it isn't, at least not the facts... even though people like yourself insist it is.
As for the solution, yes, absolutely political etc., but we're not even able to get to that if people like yourself aren't capable of getting their heads around the fact that the science & facts regarding AGW has nothing to do with politics.
Yup. I'm one of those idjut rednecks who stubbornly refuses to accept that the status of truth and facts is settled by counting noses. Or that theory formation happens independently of belief and ideology. I know too much of history to entertain those notions.

Here's something that might surprise you: The Myth of Scientific Objectivity.

Some morsels...Wilson (author) said:
"According to the popular understanding, science is simply the comparing and ordering of sense data originating from experiment or from the observation of natural phenomena. If we are lucky, patterns or other forms of order emerge from these data. Scientists can then build theories that describe and abstract these regularities, and perhaps even use them to make predictions about as-yet-unobserved phenomena...

"… The trouble is that this idealized view is wrong. The political, moral, and religious views of a scientist really do affect the results that he gets. Consider the process of theory formation...

…"
It really is worth a read. You might have to do it slowly, or you'll miss the point, as you did mine.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,382
#80
This is a complex issue, not reducible to a simplistic binary. The environment is far too important to be left to the Environmentalists.

My own view is that it seems undeniable that the climate is changing. As it has many, many times before, btw.

But I'm unconvinced that this change is anthropogenic. As is the case in 100% of all previous climate shifts, the odds are rather high that this current one, too, is natural. I strongly suspect that there's pretty much buggerall we as a species can do about it, other than adapt or die.

And I have great confidence in our ability to adapt appropriately.

Moreover, thinking that there's anything we can do to prevent or mitigate climate change is narcissism on stilts, in my estimation, which I readily acknowledge seems to be very much a minority view.

Oh by the way, I think you seriously underestimate just how grim and unbearable the repression and hardship will be should the Climatista policies be implemented.
Odds based on what?

Previous climate change events occurred without the impact of humans. So your assertion is not based on any odds, since there is no previous such circumstance to base your guess on.

It is just convenient for your conservative ideology to take that view.
 
Top