Greta Thunberg.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 695993
  • Start date
The message was delivered and recieved long ago - what needs to be done now is to work out what needs to be done, how and when. What Greta and her team need to be doing now is to help with that process - simply shouting over and over what the problem is will not help.

If she were at work, doubtless by now she would have been told by her manager “that is all very interesting, but you keep bringing me problems, what are the the solutions”.

There demands to date are things that come straight out of the junior school classroom - from people that are very idealist but have no idea of the consequences of what they are asking. As a result they demand the impossible and are then disappointed when it gets ignorred.

Her team have demanded that Siemens pull out of a contract to supply signalling equipment to an Australian coal mine. As a result her teen fans around Germany have been protesting outside Siemens offices. But do they appreciate the consequences - Siemens would be in breach and would have to pay penalties to the Australian company, Siemens workers would lose their jobs, the Australian mine would continue and just get another company to do the work. Germany is on the brink of recession and Greta’s team wants to hurt German businesses - which will drive Germany into deeper recession, and a country in recession will be less able to help on environment issues.

The problem with Greta’s team is that they come across as shouty activists - they keep repeating message but aren’t bringing any realistic help or suggestions to the table.

They have made their point by being shouty teenagers, they have elevated their position and status which has got them invited to the big tables. Now is the time to use that position to help form viable solutions - at the moment there is no sign of her team doing that which is why the ‘messenger is getting flak’.

Cheers,

Nigel
Totally agreed. They’ve managed to deal with Phase 1 and got the seat. But they now got to step up their game and go beyond activism. If not, they’ll just end up like Corbyn with a wasted opportunity.
 
Correct, and currently installing extra insulation to the house, after installing a maximum efficiency condensing gas boiler last year.
Our kids have bus passes and use low emission buses rather than asking us to cart them around. (Stroke of genius on our part ;))
And haven't you run or still do run a diesel?

Them lovely clean environmentally friendly engines the experts advised the government to subsidise for the masses, despite the the fact that any one with an ounce of knowledge about diesel knew it was absolute b******s and a disaster for public health, how many kid's are now suffering from asthma and the like.

Experts, just saying ;)
 
Since she's become involved, Climate Change has become a much more discussed and important topic, so no, the message was not delivered and received long ago. And the relevant people know what needs to be done, but currently, for various political reasons, they ain't doing it. Greta (and of course many others) are helping to put pressure on those people who *can* do something to *start* doing something.

I think the message has been around a long time before Greta appeared on the scene. The Kyoto agreement was signed back in 1997 - Greta wasn’t even born.

I don’t think there is inaction either, not in the Western World anyway. The UK has closed perfectly serviceable coal-fired power stations (of course preachy Germany have been building new ones in the meantime). Recycling has hugely increased over the last 10 years. We are seeing big changes in motoring.

The inaction as you put it is that countries and businesses are not switching everything off tomorrow - two reason why they aren’t, countries that are trying need to get alternatives in place and then there are huge countries that won’t come to the table that simply aren’t trying.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:
And haven't you run or still do run a diesel?

Them lovely clean environmentally friendly engines the experts advised the government to subsidise for the masses, despite the the fact that any one with an ounce of knowledge about diesel knew it was absolute b******s and a disaster for public health, how many kid's are now suffering from asthma and the like.

Experts, just saying ;)
Not all diesel cars are like that ;) Not much wrong with diesel with untampered particle filter etc. The biggest problem with diesel cars was that the majority of people didn't actually need them, nor would ever gain the benefit of them, yet somehow still proceeded to buy them. Always found that most peculiar how so few look at the total cost of ownership opposed to each use.
 
Not all diesel cars are like that ;) Not much wrong with diesel with untampered particle filter etc. The biggest problem with diesel cars was that the majority of people didn't actually need them, nor would ever gain the benefit of them, yet somehow still proceeded to buy them. Always found that most peculiar how so few look at the total cost of ownership opposed to each use.

I run a diesel, would prefer not to, but I do. Thing is I will probably keep hold of it for some time now because (a) diesel (even though mine is the newest cleanest type) has become so demonised that it is value has plummeted so it make more sense to run it into the ground than sell it and (b) I’m still not convinced by the carbon balance. If my diesel goes to scrap and I buy an new electric, how many years will it take to offset the carbon generated in scrapping the old car and building a new one.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Not all diesel cars are like that ;) Not much wrong with diesel with untampered particle filter etc. The biggest problem with diesel cars was that the majority of people didn't actually need them, nor would ever gain the benefit of them, yet somehow still proceeded to buy them. Always found that most peculiar how so few look at the total cost of ownership opposed to each use.
I'm an ex HGV diesel mechanic, tractor & lorry engines that should never have been used the way that they have been.

I once had a massive argument with one of my brothers who decided to get one for his weekly journey of around 100 miles max, he could not see what you write and which was pretty much what I tried to explain to him.
 
I run a diesel, would prefer not to, but I do. Thing is I will probably keep hold of it for some time now because (a) diesel (even though mine is the newest cleanest type) has become so demonised that it is value has plummeted so it make more sense to run it into the ground than sell it and (b) I’m still not convinced by the carbon balance. If my diesel goes to scrap and I buy an new electric, how many years will it take to offset the carbon generated in scrapping the old car and building a new one.

Cheers,

Nigel
That is something that is always on my mind as well. My daughters' car is 33 years old, mine is 16 years old. Whenever I see the emission readings after an MOT I wonder what the fuzz is about. They are less than modern cars we've had. Just keep them well maintained and tuned. I can't see that dumping them and buying something brand new is the greener thing to do.
 
I think the message has been around a long time before Greta appeared on the scene. The Kyoto agreement was signed back in 1997 - Greta wasn’t even born.

And yet, since 1997 things have got considerably worse. So clearly the message hasn't been getting through.

A quick look at polls taken over the last few years will show you that peoples concerns over the environment have increased considerably in the last 12 months or so. Greta is banging the drum for the climate scientists, and because of that voters are coming round to the fact that we are facing a massive crisis.
 
And haven't you run or still do run a diesel?
Yes, a relatively "clean" one with a dpf which we use for long distance travel which the EV couldn't easily cope with. So our average vehicle emissions are probably much lower than most households.
 
My emissions will be horrific I should imagine. 14 year old BMW 320D. Use it for my 15 mile a day each way commute.
 
I'm an ex HGV diesel mechanic, tractor & lorry engines that should never have been used the way that they have been.

I once had a massive argument with one of my brothers who decided to get one for his weekly journey of around 100 miles max, he could not see what you write and which was pretty much what I tried to explain to him.

I was a company car user when the big diesel switchover happened. Ironically, the birth of mainstream diesel in the UK was caused by the government trying to cut down on emissions to improve the environment.

The government switched the company car tax from being engine size based to emissions based. They immediately found that diesel did extremely well on the emission calculation they used so they tried to fudge it by adding an arbitrary 3% to diesels. To encourage people to cut their emissions they set the tax really low if the emissions were below 120. Problem was that whilst petrol cars that met this at the time were pretty feeble, you could get decent diesels. Even with the 3% supplement this meant that having a diesel as a company car saved you a lot of money - for me it was about £100 per month in my back pocket. That was like getting a £2000 pay rise.

Before this happened, most people I knew would not touch a diesel. Any friend that owned one would be the butt of jokes - taxi, tractor etc. But when the government made the change to company car tax, I saw company cars switch almost totally to diesel. And this drove diesels to get better so the public started picking them up too.

I remember at the time, the RAC, AA and the like warning the government, saying that the emissions model was wrong, it was ignoring diesel particulates which are potentially more harmful - but they were ignored.

This was under Tony Blair by the way so don’t go blaming the Tories.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
And yet, since 1997 things have got considerably worse. So clearly the message hasn't been getting through.

Has it though. What measure are you using?

In 1997 the world population was 6 million, today it is 8 million, that is a 33% increase.

So if everything stayed the same, we could expect emissions to be 33% higher.

I don’t know if that is the case, are they, genuine question.

I agree things may be worse but are they proportionately worse. For example, if from 1997 everyone cut their carbon emissions by 10% we would still be worse off today because the number of people has increased by 33%.

Okay something I pulled off wikipedia.

6206D2F3-95F0-43C8-B896-91774ECDD0A2.png


This shows, emissions from the USA and Europe reducing since 1997 (and before). It shows Russia and Japan pretty much stable. It show India with a steady increase. It shows China with a massive increase. It also shows other unnamed countries (I’m guessing a mix of African, South American and Asian) with a massive increase.

Emissions by China are actually more than the US and Europe combined.

The graph shows that in 2018, the EU and USA accounted for 22% emissions. In 1997 it was more like 38%.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:
And yet, since 1997 things have got considerably worse. So clearly the message hasn't been getting through.

How were we in the West supposed to stop the growth in emissions from places like China?.

Its rather like stopping plastic pollution of the oceans - 90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from 10 rivers in Africa and Asia. So short of invading and taking over those countries I dont really see how we in the West could prevent that pollution apart from continually asking that they do something about it (which we have done).
 
How were we in the West supposed to stop the growth in emissions from places like China?.

Its rather like stopping plastic pollution of the oceans - 90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from 10 rivers in Africa and Asia. So short of invading and taking over those countries I dont really see how we in the West could prevent that pollution apart from continually asking that they do something about it (which we have done).

There is a moral argument for invading Brazil to secure, protect, and control the Amazon as its destruction poses a threat to the national security of every country on Earth.

We invade countries because they might have missiles that could destroy a Western city, but won't invade to stop the destruction of one of the planet's key life support systems. That seems a little crazy to me.
 
There is a moral argument for invading Brazil to secure, protect, and control the Amazon as its destruction poses a threat to the national security of every country on Earth.

We invade countries because they might have missiles that could destroy a Western city, but won't invade to stop the destruction of one of the planet's key life support systems. That seems a little crazy to me.

Well I think you have been the only person I have ever heard of advocating that the UK invade Brazil.

Are you expecting a lot of public support? :thumbsdow
 
There is a moral argument for invading Brazil to secure, protect, and control the Amazon as its destruction poses a threat to the national security of every country on Earth.
or have Bolsonaro taken out, make it look natural causes
- will definitely give the tinfoilers a stiffy for years
 
When China sits down with other countries to negotiate, you can bet that total CO2 emissions WILL come up, and again, I'm pointing out it's not black and white, and there is no viable alternative to limiting climate change. Doing nothing is not an alternative, and simply blaming it on China will result in disaster.

As for all the rest, antipathy towards the US, Trump, Greece, it sounds like you have some issues you need to work out on your own that aren't totally connected to this subject
Not really sure why you think I've got issues with the US, Trump or Greece? Greece got stiffed by the EU in 2008. The ECB in theory along with the IMF bailed them out! The money went in and straight out, to German, Belgian and French banks. Leaving Greece with an even greater debt mountain. Next to the US and it's CO2 emissions. The US has been an industrial giant for well over a century. So their emissions total is going to be high. We need to deal with what is relevant now! In order of emissions currently - China, USA, India, Japan. You may notice three of the four are in Asia. Two of them have gone faster than Usain Bolt from next to no emissions and are still adding to their totals. During the last ten years China has build nearly a thousand coal fired power stations. On to Donald Trump! According to the PC Brigade the embodiment of evil! All we need to do is get rid of him and all the World's problems will be over. How did we as Adults, fall for this bogey man crap.
A friend sent me a joke about Donald Trump.
He invites the Pope onto his yacht. During dinner the Pope's Mitre blows off into the water.
Donald Trump says don't worry I'll get it for you.
Jumps over the side, walks on water and brings it back.
On CNN the following day, "Just in Donald Trump can't swim!" 😛😛😛
 
Last edited:
Well I think you have been the only person I have ever heard of advocating that the UK invade Brazil.

Are you expecting a lot of public support? :thumbsdow

I'm not advocating, only saying we've invaded sovereign nations for less.

I actually do think you'd get public support on this one. The right love a good war (see Falklands), and you'd get the the Libtards to support it because its a mission to literally save the planet.
 
I'm not advocating, only saying we've invaded sovereign nations for less.

I actually do think you'd get public support on this one. The right love a good war (see Falklands), and you'd get the the Libtards to support it because its a mission to literally save the planet.

Have you actually thought this through? - you are suggesting that we drop tens of thousands of tons of high explosive and toxic ordnance on a country in order to save the environment... o_O
 
Environmentally friendly bombs,,solar powered aircraft and missile systems.sailing yachts to replace landing craft...Jobs a good un :laugh:
 
or at least ones that don't burn the forests... how about water bombs?
 
Miss Thunberg is a megaphone.
 
Have you actually thought this through? - you are suggesting that we drop tens of thousands of tons of high explosive and toxic ordnance on a country in order to save the environment... o_O

If it were a global initiative, I doubt you'd even have a war. If you had the US and China on side, the Brazilians wouldn't even mount a defence. Saying that, this is never going to happen, I hadn't really thought it about further than the morality of the act.
 
I remember at the time, the RAC, AA and the like warning the government, saying that the emissions model was wrong, it was ignoring diesel particulates which are potentially more harmful - but they were ignored.

This was under Tony Blair by the way so don’t go blaming the Tories.
Lot's of information about the already known dangers of diesel was ignored for profits and tax revenue, this is still happening with many other things in the name of the environment, which is why I still think most of what we are told is rubbish.

All political parties are equally guilty, and isn't Blair a Tory :D

relatively
To what, old red buses & black cabs. Just ribbing you :)
 
How were we in the West supposed to stop the growth in emissions from places like China?.

Stop buying goods made in and imported from China, is a good starting point.

If emissions come from the manufacturing of goods for us, then those are our emissions.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom