Greta Thunberg
#1
Posted 24 September 2019 - 07:10 AM
She is trying to take the fight for the planet to the powers that won’t.
There isnt anywhere else to go, we can’t just move down the road because our own area has gone down hill. I particularly liked the part about the folly of societies pursuit of unending economic growth. And thought it might be a timely reminder to wind back the clock to 2006, and see a potential opportunity missed.
http://www.thecfss.c...h=1
http://www.thecfss.c...76
So, to reignite the debate, but move it on from a CFC issue, (non CFC chat here guys) how do people now see renewables? Has anyone changed their views? Would agencies such as NASA. Be better off being shelved, and those resources that are currently looking at moon landings (the best brains and the money) be better used to solve the environmental crisis and the 6th mass extinction event that is looming?
Is nuclear the new focus? Do we need a Manhattan style focus, but for energy generation instead of bomb production but with same vigour and commitment?
Take this as my renewable standpoint rather than a bash CFC standpoint please. The tired old arguments don’t need to be rehashed.
#2
Posted 24 September 2019 - 10:43 AM
DEATH, on 24 September 2019 - 07:10 AM, said:
She is trying to take the fight for the planet to the powers that won’t.
There isnt anywhere else to go, we can’t just move down the road because our own area has gone down hill. I particularly liked the part about the folly of societies pursuit of unending economic growth. And thought it might be a timely reminder to wind back the clock to 2006, and see a potential opportunity missed.
http://www.thecfss.c...h=1
http://www.thecfss.c...76
So, to reignite the debate, but move it on from a CFC issue, (non CFC chat here guys) how do people now see renewables? Has anyone changed their views? Would agencies such as NASA. Be better off being shelved, and those resources that are currently looking at moon landings (the best brains and the money) be better used to solve the environmental crisis and the 6th mass extinction event that is looming?
Is nuclear the new focus? Do we need a Manhattan style focus, but for energy generation instead of bomb production but with same vigour and commitment?
Take this as my renewable standpoint rather than a bash CFC standpoint please. The tired old arguments don’t need to be rehashed.
Try again.
the space programme by all countries is a waste of time & money. its just a measuring dicks exercise. we arent going to colonise any other planet, lets concentrate on making the one weve got a better place to be.
in this day & age kids shouldn't be living below the poverty line, people shouldn't be dying from drinking dirty water etc.
itll take a radical rethink to achieve these kind of things & renewable energy & people like Thunberg have to make the most of their time in the limelight. she/they may not change much but at least theyre trying.
This post has been edited by mr. smith: 24 September 2019 - 10:51 AM
#3
Posted 24 September 2019 - 12:01 PM
Subsidies US government gave to fossil fuels to make them artificially cheaper in 2017: $5.2 trillion (nearly 7% of GDP)
NASA budget 2019: $19.9 billion (0.489% of GDP).
At least space exploration (not moon landings, but the meteorological satellites that analyse and help scientists understand global warming and climate change and combat it better, which was a key event of NASA’s work...until Trump decided the money allotted ought to be spent on his moon/mars landing dream and even more ridiculous space ranger fantasy.
Humans have always had an innate urge to explore and discover, and I don’t think this can be or ought to be stymied when there is far more spent on things directly contributing to turning our world into s hell hole. That’s not even to mention other hideous wastes of money like building and maintaining nuclear arsenals etc.
#4
Posted 24 September 2019 - 12:39 PM
#5
Posted 24 September 2019 - 03:55 PM
Nerima Spireite, on 24 September 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:
Subsidies US government gave to fossil fuels to make them artificially cheaper in 2017: $5.2 trillion (nearly 7% of GDP)
NASA budget 2019: $19.9 billion (0.489% of GDP).
At least space exploration (not moon landings, but the meteorological satellites that analyse and help scientists understand global warming and climate change and combat it better, which was a key event of NASA’s work...until Trump decided the money allotted ought to be spent on his moon/mars landing dream and even more ridiculous space ranger fantasy.
Humans have always had an innate urge to explore and discover, and I don’t think this can be or ought to be stymied when there is far more spent on things directly contributing to turning our world into s hell hole. That’s not even to mention other hideous wastes of money like building and maintaining nuclear arsenals etc.
That’s a very interesting post. I wonder what the figure of $5.2 trillion could achieve I’d used in sustainable non carbon energy sources could achieve in 5 years.
I also agree with smig that the new moon landings and planned manned missions to Mars are “dick measuring”
#6
Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:33 PM
#7
Posted 24 September 2019 - 05:15 PM
Then his mates join in: https://www.dailymai...dish-child.html
Infact it becomes a race to the bottom: https://www.theguard...hting-accidents
If these vermin are against her she must be doing summat right...
#8
Posted 24 September 2019 - 05:20 PM
The Earl of Chesterfield, on 24 September 2019 - 05:15 PM, said:
Then his mates join in: https://www.dailymai...dish-child.html
Infact it becomes a race to the bottom: https://www.theguard...hting-accidents
If these vermin are against her she must be doing summat right...
theres more
https://metro.co.uk/...tator-10790893/
#10
Posted 25 September 2019 - 08:32 AM
#12
Posted 28 September 2019 - 09:28 AM
These same people were almost unanimous in their views that the young Begum ISIS bride girl knew exactly what she was doing aged 15 and should be held to account for her actions!
#13
Posted 01 October 2019 - 03:10 PM
Cartman, on 28 September 2019 - 09:28 AM, said:
These same people were almost unanimous in their views that the young Begum ISIS bride girl knew exactly what she was doing aged 15 and should be held to account for her actions!
An excellent point.
And it’s currently Greta 2 - North American leaders 0 on her current tour - clearly her own will...
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=zmXOPrCr_F4
https://www.google.c...e-10822340/amp/
Good lass. Keep it up!
#14
Posted 01 October 2019 - 05:36 PM
Cartman, on 28 September 2019 - 09:28 AM, said:
These same people were almost unanimous in their views that the young Begum ISIS bride girl knew exactly what she was doing aged 15 and should be held to account for her actions!
Probably because is making leaders uncomfortable by trying to save the planet, while the other makes leaders uncomfortable because she joined a death cult that wanted to spread a murderous ideology across the planet
#15
Posted 01 October 2019 - 05:40 PM
#16
Posted 01 October 2019 - 05:49 PM
#20 Guest_Quaker_*
Posted 02 October 2019 - 07:15 AM
mr. smith, on 24 September 2019 - 05:20 PM, said:
I find this astonishing.
Over the last couple of weeks I have seen some awful things said about her by adults.
Without wishing to patronise her, she is a 16 year old kid with a passion to make the world a better place. Whether we agree with the way she does things or not, she's just a kid. The bullying and vitriol aimed at her is shocking.
In my opinion its good to see a kid with a bit of fire in her belly and a passion for something important. What it must be like for her family to see some of this stuff doesn't bare thinking about.
Whether she "looks like an Eskimo" or you find her "a bit annoying" is irrelevant with regard to the point she is trying to make. It would be nice if people like those who wrote the article could counter argue without the bullying tactics. She's just a kid.