A post EV era

[Zynerji]

The hubris is nauseating.

The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

[wesley123]

The hubris is nauseating.

The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

If you are fine with dying from a perfectly salvageable scenario that's all great on you, but I really don't get why you need to take the rest with you.

[vorticism]

You pine for justice yet ultimately seek some kind of diffusion of justice upon the masses whom had nothing to do with the infraction. This is, as mentioned before, advocating for externalities. Why would you do that? Are you an investment banker? If you want justice for the carbon emissions of recently industrialized nations, then identify who moved industry out of the West. Identify the bankers and barons who built up the industry and sweatshops in those nations who are now carbon threats. Those are your culprits, not the underclasses of the West who played no role in economic policy nor capital allocation, who obviously would not have voted for the gutting of their own domestic industries. Identify the culprits, then apply the justice: a carbon tax, a climate justice factor, or whatever, via taxation, fines, imprisonment, or death penalty. If we hold individuals with names responsible, the precision of and scope of consequences will begin to become more clear. How serious are we really about this so called climate justice?

Sorry to say this but this part is quite easy and immature. I´m not a banker so I´m not responsible....

It's the same as expecting me and my people to pay for the externalities of the 2008 financial crisis. Which we did via inflation, interest rates, recession, turmoil, etc., except no one voted for it. It was applied to us via our representative governments and their banking systems,this sort of diffuse-justice -- which the Lithium Miners Volunteer Defense League similarly advocate for.

Maybe we are not bankers or CEOs of petrol companies, but politicians do what people ask them to do. We like to bash them, but in the end they only do what they think will provide votes.

There are reasons why, in English, there are words like lobbying, special-interest-groups, and campaign-promises.

If you think that Western republics serve the democratic or cultural interests of their underclasses, I have a bridge to sell you. Even if you were to take seriously the democratic elections of representatives in these nations, as clean and honest, you would still have to contend with the existence of propaganda bureaus as the front-end of the modern democratic processes. We should probably end this back-and-forth exchange, it will become repetitive since you are still somewhat doe-eyed about how most of our modern Western governments operate, although I will give you some credit for recognizing the futility of voting.

The hubris is nauseating. The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

If you are fine with dying from a perfectly salvageable scenario that's all great on you, but I really don't get why you need to take the rest with you.

He's right though. Modern politicians love an unquantifiable problem, it means they never have to deliver, only move goalposts and wave their hands about. 10-20 years ago it was a similar cognitive disposition to yours which was declaring our eminent deaths due to terrorism, which never transpired. And in current times you're type are convinced children will die from flu en masse despite them having a higher mortality rate due to automobiles and bicycles, electrically driven or otherwise. Do you really expect to die from climate change specifically in your lifetime?

[Big Tea]

What few seem to mention when speaking of 'transport' and emissions co2 etc, is military and the guy who drives to work everyday are classed the same. Anyone seen a division of this? I would imagine the military part is huge when you include shipping and air. I lived near a military airfield for a while and it was as well used as an airport.
Add the aircraft off carriers and Helos, and I imagine a few % reduction from each country would be more than worth while

[Tommy Cookers]

What few seem to mention when speaking of 'transport' and emissions co2 etc ....

what few seem to acknowlege is that (typically) ......
emissions for heating must be the real goal but we are bamboozled with emissions for transport
('they' want to make us all feel guilty)

the whole 'system' of carbon accounting is rigged to mislead

[Andres125sx]

You pine for justice yet ultimately seek some kind of diffusion of justice upon the masses whom had nothing to do with the infraction. This is, as mentioned before, advocating for externalities. Why would you do that? Are you an investment banker? If you want justice for the carbon emissions of recently industrialized nations, then identify who moved industry out of the West. Identify the bankers and barons who built up the industry and sweatshops in those nations who are now carbon threats. Those are your culprits, not the underclasses of the West who played no role in economic policy nor capital allocation, who obviously would not have voted for the gutting of their own domestic industries. Identify the culprits, then apply the justice: a carbon tax, a climate justice factor, or whatever, via taxation, fines, imprisonment, or death penalty. If we hold individuals with names responsible, the precision of and scope of consequences will begin to become more clear. How serious are we really about this so called climate justice?

Sorry to say this but this part is quite easy and immature. I´m not a banker so I´m not responsible....

It's the same as expecting me and my people to pay for the externalities of the 2008 financial crisis. Which we did via inflation, interest rates, recession, turmoil, etc., except no one voted for it. It was applied to us via our representative governments and their banking systems,this sort of diffuse-justice -- which the Lithium Miners Volunteer Defense League similarly advocate for.

Maybe we are not bankers or CEOs of petrol companies, but politicians do what people ask them to do. We like to bash them, but in the end they only do what they think will provide votes.

There are reasons why, in English, there are words like lobbying, special-interest-groups, and campaign-promises.

If you think that Western republics serve the democratic or cultural interests of their underclasses, I have a bridge to sell you. Even if you were to take seriously the democratic elections of representatives in these nations, as clean and honest, you would still have to contend with the existence of propaganda bureaus as the front-end of the modern democratic processes. We should probably end this back-and-forth exchange, it will become repetitive since you are still somewhat doe-eyed about how most of our modern Western governments operate, although I will give you some credit for recognizing the futility of voting.

The hubris is nauseating. The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

If you are fine with dying from a perfectly salvageable scenario that's all great on you, but I really don't get why you need to take the rest with you.

He's right though. Modern politicians love an unquantifiable problem, it means they never have to deliver, only move goalposts and wave their hands about. 10-20 years ago it was a similar cognitive disposition to yours which was declaring our eminent deaths due to terrorism, which never transpired. And in current times you're type are convinced children will die from flu en masse despite them having a higher mortality rate due to automobiles and bicycles, electrically driven or otherwise. Do you really expect to die from climate change specifically in your lifetime?

Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand lobbying, groups, propaganda... and even agree they're main responsibles for current scenario.

But at this point pointing fingers will solve nothing, we need to first assume the problem exist as incredibly there are still a good percentage of naysayers. Then we need to accept the solution will never be some parts of the society solving the problem, not even the responsible parts, but the whole society, as the task is huge and need to be faced globally

Assuming part of the responsibility is not a matter of not understanding lobbying, but an act of maturity and understanding the causes are irrelevant at this point, as consequences will affect us all, so we need to accept it, and collaborate at any scale to solve it

Leading by example is the only way to go, not because we think we are better than anyone, but because it must be done asap and that is the fastest way to make any change. Less words, less promises, less analysis, and more facts

[vorticism]

the whole 'system' of carbon accounting is rigged to mislead

As with most aspects of high finance these days. The over class changes wardrobes across the decades. Student loans and mortgage-backed-securities were dwindling so they needed to engineer a new siphon out of their pre-existing financial instruments. Technical! And no shortage of these mortgage mongers stickers on F1 cars. Too bad they outlawed tobacco adverts instead of usury adverts.

[Zynerji]

The hubris is nauseating.

The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

If you are fine with dying from a perfectly salvageable scenario that's all great on you, but I really don't get why you need to take the rest with you.

Meh. It's still all opinion, and zero actual proof. For a science like weather prediction, that is at best only correct 50% of the time, to base your beliefs on their doctored and modified results is an exercise in idiocy.

I have an intrinsic suspicion of any human that "requires" me to modify my lifestyle or thinking. Call it the American in me...

[wesley123]

The hubris is nauseating. The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

If you are fine with dying from a perfectly salvageable scenario that's all great on you, but I really don't get why you need to take the rest with you.

He's right though. Modern politicians love an unquantifiable problem, it means they never have to deliver, only move goalposts and wave their hands about.

And that is exactly the problem, we are now suffering the effects from problems well known in the 80s already.

10-20 years ago it was a similar cognitive disposition to yours which was declaring our eminent deaths due to terrorism, which never transpired.

Fairly certain terrorism was, and actually still is, a thing. Although I've never been to New York I am fairly certain there were two large towers there that suddenly disappeared after the 9th of september 2001. And there are quite a few other things as well that happened that were most definitely terrorism.

And in current times you're type are convinced children will die from flu en masse

Actually, no one ever thought that. That's nothing more than a flawed argument from people opposing it. However, what is an issue, and what people were worried of, was the healthcare system being congested to such an extent that people couldn't be helped anymore. But thankfully that never happened, as the Italians will happily tell you.

Do you really expect to die from climate change specifically in your lifetime?

Being born in 1992 I do remember the winters the Netherlands had. Being cold, but not too cold and a bit of snow. I also remember temperatures generally being around 30 degrees celsius max. in the summer. Few years ago we measured well over 40 degrees and temperatures can differ a whopping 15 degrees celsius between one day and the next. I don't think you need to be well-educated in terms of the weather to know that that isn't really normal. Neither is torrential rain, nor are winds well over 100kph. I also really wonder if hail the size of small stones while it is well above freezing is normal for April.

So to answer your question, yes. And to maybe better answer your question; I'm really not that keen on betting my life on the arrogance of some other know-it-alls.

It's kind of a trick question, though, because with the world tension increasing we might all just die in the impending nuclear war before that.

[wesley123]

The hubris is nauseating.

The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

If you are fine with dying from a perfectly salvageable scenario that's all great on you, but I really don't get why you need to take the rest with you.

Meh. It's still all opinion, and zero actual proof. For a science like weather prediction, that is at best only correct 50% of the time, to base your beliefs on their doctored and modified results is an exercise in idiocy.

I have an intrinsic suspicion of any human that "requires" me to modify my lifestyle or thinking. Call it the American in me...

I would consider the extreme weather, periods of draught, torrential rain, heat and snow quite the proof. Reading this I seriously wonder what you would consider proof, as scientists have proven time and time again that the amount of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere are increasing at a significant rate, scientists have also shown the global warming, melting of ice caps et cetera.

I genuinely do not know what you would consider proof.

And it has nothing to do with being American or whatever, this is just being ignorant and hard headed at this point.

[johnny comelately]

the whole 'system' of carbon accounting is rigged to mislead

As with most aspects of high finance these days. The over class changes wardrobes across the decades. Student loans and mortgage-backed-securities were dwindling so they needed to engineer a new siphon out of their pre-existing financial instruments. Technical! And no shortage of these mortgage mongers stickers on F1 cars. Too bad they outlawed tobacco adverts instead of usury adverts.

When emissions trading started George Soros immediately was critical because they would be gamed.
His position has been maintained now for more reasons saying that Cap and Trade are ineffective to stop developing countries increasing their levels of pollution,
He argues for a flat tax on carbon emissions with that going to an innovation fund.
I personally dont agree as disincentives are only partial.
Looking back at the auto industry capped emissions were very effective in making vehicles less polluting.
Since the pandemic it has brought into question manufacturing sequences and it would be prudent to focus on innovation as applied to all areas: design, distribution, city planning, work practices, the need for commuting balanced with social needs (not wants) etc
Someone here previously brought up defence related pollution which is a big one but with the current world unrest it will be a hard sell to reduce that, unfortunately.

[vorticism]

He's right though. Modern politicians love an unquantifiable problem, it means they never have to deliver, only move goalposts and wave their hands about.

And that is exactly the problem, we are now suffering the effects from problems well known in the 80s already.

And your problems of the 80s were predicted fifty years prior, by some. If you agree that politicians moving goalposts around an ill-defined problem is an issue, then what more could we agree upon? I wonder. We likely disagree on the definitions of long term threats and how to prepare for them in the present. Many conundrums ITT. Those who say they are trying to avoid loss of life due to climate change, also support various forms of population controls, which is to say, other forms of life-loss.

... to answer your question, yes. And to maybe better answer your question; I'm really not that keen on betting my life on the arrogance of some other know-it-alls. It's kind of a trick question, though, because with the world tension increasing we might all just die in the impending nuclear war before that.

I'm not a know-it-all, I simply don’t parrot newsreaders. The more realistic future-term existential threats to indigenous Europeans are loss of fossil fuel imports, loss of infrastructure, loss of commerce and industry, loss of culture, and immigration. Over the next half century, Europeans may be wishing it was simply bad weather they had to deal with. Our ancestors of course survived far more drastic weather changes--the Pleistocene ended. Europe self flagellates spilling its life-blood to virtue signal in a dozen different ways, while the BRICs invest in each other unhindered by such suicidal pretenses, celebrating their histories and nationalities and natives while confident that the other nations of the world can fend for themselves. This is the root of the contentiousness around carbon--how much more ground is Europe to give? How much more is to be placed upon the altar of poor readings of history and imposed guilt? Europe deserves better. You deserve better, cousin.

When emissions trading started George Soros immediately was critical because they would be gamed.
His position has been maintained now for more reasons saying that Cap and Trade are ineffective to stop developing countries increasing their levels of pollution,
He argues for a flat tax on carbon emissions with that going to an innovation fund.
I personally dont agree as disincentives are only partial.
Looking back at the auto industry capped emissions were very effective in making vehicles less polluting.
Since the pandemic it has brought into question manufacturing sequences and it would be prudent to focus on innovation as applied to all areas: design, distribution, city planning, work practices etc
Someone here previously brought up defence related pollution which is a big one but with the current world unrest it will be a hard sell to reduce that, unfortunately.

A billionaire argued for a flat tax? Ya don’t say! Well, I guess I’d agree with you in that taxes generally will only be partially effective because they tend to only affect people who can’t afford lawyers. That’s why I said a few posts ago: identify the individuals responsible for the capital allocations which caused the ‘emerging markets’ carbon bomb of the past half century. They have names. Hold them responsible. Call it Climate Nuremburg. The underclasses of the West never voted to industrialize every nation on Earth so why punish them instead of the perpetrators.

[johnny comelately]

On a positive note...
The pandemic showed the value and correct use of science.
And fortunately politics followed that lead, generally. An acknowledgment of ignorance.
And the larger the science cohort the better the outcome.
One could hope the same will apply to pollution.

[johnny comelately]

"A billionaire argued for a flat tax? Ya don’t say! Well, I guess I’d agree with you in that taxes generally will only be partially effective because they tend to only affect people who can’t afford lawyers. That’s why I said a few posts ago: identify the individuals responsible for the capital allocations which caused the ‘emerging markets’ carbon bomb of the past half century. They have names. Hold them responsible. Call it Climate Nuremburg. The underclasses of the West never voted to industrialize every nation on Earth so why punish them instead of the perpetrators."
[/quote]


IMHO, punishment will never be the complete panacea

[johnny comelately]

And this I would thoroughly recommend.
Its only shortcoming is a lack of solutions, it is mainly a critique of our current approach and starts with emissions trading.
"net zero has zero chance of saving us from climate change"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-11/ ... /101288116