'Worse than Voldemort': Global students' strike targets climate change

[gunderhill]

 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, gunderhill said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Church_of_God

[balo]

Children will be children, when I went to school back in the 1970's and 80's we also wanted to change the world into a better one.    If social media existed in the 1970's, I could also start a revolution. 

 

Gretha Thunberg and her young followers really believe they can change the climate by asking the grown ups to change their daily bad habits and ask the politicians to do the right thing, less cars, more environmental friendly solutions. And why not? We don't need pollution so anything that can stop it is a good thing. 

 

But children of today will soon grow up and become politicians and leaders themselves, and then realize that life is a lot more complicated than they thought,  

 

Maybe nothing will change, maybe the next 500 years will be just like today with variable climate from year to year, and people will accept that there is no miracle cure. 

Maybe Greta Thunberg will realize this herself in 10 years, or maybe she will become an icon we will talk about for the next 1000 years, who knows....

 

Some people are talking about giving her the Nobel Peace Prize. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[Gracas]

At the very least it succeeded in getting students to put their phones down for five minutes, take out that box of crayons their Grand-mother gave them for Christmas and put them to use. Well done.

[Tug]

You never know one of them might invent the key to an energy abundant minimally pollutied world keep trying don’t give up!!!be mindful many families are supported by the energy industry get cracking kids!!!

[gunderhill]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Church_of_God

Praise be  to  the  lord.

[bristolboy]

On 3/19/2019 at 10:39 PM, balo said:

 

 

Maybe nothing will change, maybe the next 500 years will be just like today with variable climate from year to year, and people will accept that there is no miracle cure. 

 

 

Some people just don't seem to understand that a trend and variability aren't mutually exclusive.

[Prissana Pescud]

On 3/16/2019 at 7:22 AM, crouchpeter said:

This is the generation that can't walk to school, that needs air-con in the classroom, whose only entertainments use electricity and who think we can flood our countries with people from countries already ruined, and survive!
But not to worry..... they'll be eating dates and using donkeys for transport. (but not to get to school)!

 

Sent from my CPH1727 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Yes you may live in an area where this happens. Lucky you, because it is you that insists you drive them to school.

Silly post from you. The rest of your post is more silly and racist or religious intolerant or both.

But then that is what this post is all about. Intolerance to a new generation of young people who only have their own

survival as an issue. Because your carbon policy condemns these kids and you should feel a tiny bit of responsibility

for their future. Check out the stockpiles of plastic waste in your own country. Nah, you won't do that, your generation is all about polluting. 

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

Because your carbon policy condemns these kids and you should feel a tiny bit of responsibility

for their future. Check out the stockpiles of plastic waste in your own country. Nah, you won't do that, your generation is all about polluting. 

This comment highlights the real problem. The failure to distinguish between 'real' pollutants and CO2 which is clearly not a pollutant.

 

Plastic bags, bottles and other rubbish are clearly harmful to the environment. Reducing CO2 emissions will not solve that problem, but has probably made it worse as a result of rising energy prices related to the higher cost of renewables.

 

The solution to rubbish disposal has been around for ages. Use it for fuel. Burn it in high-temperature incinerators with state-of-the-art emission controls, and produce electricity. This will not be as efficient as burning coal to produce electricity, but the value of the electricity produced will at least offset the cost of disposing of the rubbish.

 

Unfortunately, in a political/religious environment where CO2 is demonized, any solution which involves emissions of that amazing gas which is essential for all life, and helps green the planet and fertilize our crops, will not be used. How silly! 

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This comment highlights the real problem. The failure to distinguish between 'real' pollutants and CO2 which is clearly not a pollutant.

 

Plastic bags, bottles and other rubbish are clearly harmful to the environment. Reducing CO2 emissions will not solve that problem, but has probably made it worse as a result of rising energy prices related to the higher cost of renewables.

 

The solution to rubbish disposal has been around for ages. Use it for fuel. Burn it in high-temperature incinerators with state-of-the-art emission controls, and produce electricity. This will not be as efficient as burning coal to produce electricity, but the value of the electricity produced will at least offset the cost of disposing of the rubbish.

 

Unfortunately, in a political/religious environment where CO2 is demonized, any solution which involves emissions of that amazing gas which is essential for all life, and helps green the planet and fertilize our crops, will not be used. How silly! 

Talk about silly. Oxygen is essential for life, too. Think it would be a good idea to drastically increase the percentage of that amazing gas in the atmosphere, too?

And you continually spread the falsehood the renewable power plants generate power that is higher in cost than that generated by coal. This is a falsehood. The more transparent an economy is, the more likely it is that coal power plants won't be getting loans from the private sector. It's no coincidence that China and Indonesia, hardly models of good governance, are now the chief builders of coal powered power plants. There's India, too, but there the private sector has turned its back on coal powered plants because solar is already cheaper. It's only the government there that is now building coal powered plants. Coal no longer makes economic sense. And the price of generating renewables is still falling drastically. On average 20 percent per year! And even where natural gas is now cheap, such as in the USA, solar powered peaker plants are already posing a threat to natural gas powered peaker plants.

[dick dasterdly]

Whilst I'm happy that the latest 'teenage generation' are somewhat more aware of the dangers of polluting our planet, the problem is that they will grow up, get jobs, and change their views as they realise that genuine change will cost them more....

 

Most (?) of us are idealists as teenagers, and the best example is the 60s generation.

 

They grew up, got jobs and (again mostly?) became capitalists - caring about nothing other than their own wealth ☹️.

[Tug]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whilst I'm happy that the latest 'teenage generation' are somewhat more aware of the dangers of polluting our planet, the problem is that they will grow up, get jobs, and change their views as they realise that genuine change will cost them more....

 

Most (?) of us are idealists as teenagers, and the best example is the 60s generation.

 

They grew up, got jobs and (again mostly?) became capitalists - caring about nothing other than their own wealth ☹️.

Not so!!your post has a lot of truth but I and many I know have retained that youthful idealism as we raised our families made our nest eggs and tryed in our different ways to try to make things just a little bit better you go kids!!

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, Tug said:

Not so!!your post has a lot of truth but I and many I know have retained that youthful idealism as we raised our families made our nest eggs and tryed in our different ways to try to make things just a little bit better you go kids!!

Which is why I said "most".

 

Like you, I hope I have (mostly) retained my youthful idealism, and nearly always try to help those less fortunate than myself.

[mikebike]

On 3/16/2019 at 7:22 AM, crouchpeter said:

This is the generation that can't walk to school, that needs air-con in the classroom, whose only entertainments use electricity and who think we can flood our countries with people from countries already ruined, and survive!
But not to worry..... they'll be eating dates and using donkeys for transport. (but not to get to school)!

 

Sent from my CPH1727 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

You seem to think "global" means "USA". Broaden your perspective.

[mikebike]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:49 PM, Nyezhov said:

Alternatively, these kids will grow up and reject the propaganda the anti-capitalist, fascist and elitist "environmentalists" have shoved down their throats. Hopefully that will happen before it is too late to save our hard earned lifestyle.

Millenials ARE NOT living your lifestyle and appear not to want to. But keep trying to live in a world which no longer exists... it keeps the rest of us amused.

[mikebike]

On 3/16/2019 at 2:30 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps they could volunteer to use their weekends to clean up all the garbage, but I strongly doubt that they will ever do anything practical in their own time.

Regarding climate change, it is FAR more practical to demand systemic change. This is not a 1972 public service advert and picking up trash ain't gonna do shizzle.

[mikebike]

On 3/16/2019 at 3:15 PM, usviphotography said:

Send these kids to Chiang Mai for the month and get a dose of what real environmental problems look like. 

You meant LOCAL environmental problems, right?

[Nyezhov]

8 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Millenials ARE NOT living your lifestyle and appear not to want to

Thats for sure. They have their noses stuck in their phones, can't write a coherent sentence, never read a book, live in a virtual world instead of a real one and have problems figuring out their own sexuality as they smoke weed and post tripe on the net from Mommy's basement.

 

Its not that they dont want to, its just that they are intellectually vacuous and incapable of hard work due to their narcissistic sheltered upbringing.

 

Your world dude, not mine. Im happy.

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Thats for sure. They have their noses stuck in their phones, can't write a coherent sentence, never read a book, live in a virtual world instead of a real one and have problems figuring out their own sexuality as they smoke weed and post tripe on the net from Mommy's basement.

 

Its not that they dont want to, its just that they are intellectually vacuous and incapable of hard work due to their narcissistic sheltered upbringing.

You're forgetting "have no knowledge of history and believe themselves unique in having to live with the consequences of previous generations".  In the twentieth century there's been (1) the generation that grew up after the First World War (and lived to fight in the Second World War); (2) the generation that grew up during and after the Great Depression; (3) the generation that grew up after the Second World War (and lived to fight in the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars); (4) ...

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Millenials ARE NOT living your lifestyle and appear not to want to. But keep trying to live in a world which no longer exists... it keeps the rest of us amused.

Actually they are - but don't realise that living this way contradicts their teenage convictions....

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Regarding climate change, it is FAR more practical to demand systemic change. This is not a 1972 public service advert and picking up trash ain't gonna do shizzle.

Kids walking about in school time carrying placards isn't going to change anything. Picking up garbage is always worthwhile though, plus it is a bonding exercise and instils respect for the environment.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Kids walking about in school time carrying placards isn't going to change anything. Picking up garbage is always worthwhile though, plus it is a bonding exercise and instils respect for the environment.

Off you go then, lead by example.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Actually they are - but don't realise that living this way contradicts their teenage convictions....

Well that's your assumption from afar.

[balo]

19 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whilst I'm happy that the latest 'teenage generation' are somewhat more aware of the dangers of polluting our planet, the problem is that they will grow up, get jobs, and change their views as they realise that genuine change will cost them more

 

When they grow up they will also realize that life is too short , and that death is a reality. When you're a teenager your brain will not accept that your own life is going to stop one day.  

Once you hit 50, there's no time to lose , every day counts. Enjoy your life with friends and family, instead of worrying too much about the climate. 

 

[Prissana Pescud]

On 3/21/2019 at 6:35 PM, VincentRJ said:

This comment highlights the real problem. The failure to distinguish between 'real' pollutants and CO2 which is clearly not a pollutant.

 

Plastic bags, bottles and other rubbish are clearly harmful to the environment. Reducing CO2 emissions will not solve that problem, but has probably made it worse as a result of rising energy prices related to the higher cost of renewables.

 

The solution to rubbish disposal has been around for ages. Use it for fuel. Burn it in high-temperature incinerators with state-of-the-art emission controls, and produce electricity. This will not be as efficient as burning coal to produce electricity, but the value of the electricity produced will at least offset the cost of disposing of the rubbish.

 

Unfortunately, in a political/religious environment where CO2 is demonized, any solution which involves emissions of that amazing gas which is essential for all life, and helps green the planet and fertilize our crops, will not be used. How silly! 

If you do not understand that excess CO2 is not a pollutant you have lost the plot already.  Excess of every element that supports the world global capacity to absorb it is total lunacy.  You cut down all the trees that absorb CO2  and you reduce the ability of the world to balance the excess CO2 and therefore cannot release the oxygen we all need.  Sorry, you are a climate change critic. And you critics are in retreat as science makes you fools.

High temperature incinerators are fine. If coal could be burned in the same way, half the problem is solved.

But who wants to produce a neutral pollution coal factory?

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, balo said:

 

When they grow up they will also realize that life is too short , and that death is a reality. When you're a teenager your brain will not accept that your own life is going to stop one day.  

Once you hit 50, there's no time to lose , every day counts. Enjoy your life with friends and family, instead of worrying too much about the climate. 

 

I’m beyond 50 and I still worry about it now, as much as I ever did. 

[VincentRJ]

On 3/23/2019 at 9:27 AM, Prissana Pescud said:

If you do not understand that excess CO2 is not a pollutant you have lost the plot already. 

If you don't understand that an excess of anything can be bad, in accordance with the definition of excess, then it is you who have lost the plot. A person can even die by drinking too much clean water, after a marathon run for example, but it would be silly to then describe clean water as a pollutant, to be avoided.

 

The issue that should be addressed is why a modest increase in a beneficial trace gas that has risen from 0.0286% of the atmosphere to just 0.04% of the atmosphere during the past 150 years, should cause so much alarm to so many people.

 

I could understand a reason for the alarm if those tiny quantities of CO2 were already toxic to some degree, like arsenic. Very small quantities of arsenic can be tolerated by the human body, and even smaller quantities might be beneficial. However, if those quantities that the body can tolerate are raised significantly, by 10 or 20 times, then serious toxicity or even death can result.

 

Carbon Dioxide is not in the same category as arsenic, or any of the other real pollutants emitted from the burning of fossil fuels that affect human health, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrous Oxides, heavy metals such as Lead, Mercury and Cadmium, and small particles of carbon that can get stuck in the lungs.

 

The survival of all creatures, including humans, is dependent upon their ability to distinguish between harmful and beneficial substances. The 40% increase in CO2 levels during the past 150 years is beneficial to the environment. However, there are many human activities which are harmful to the environment, such as the massive amount of deforestation that has occurred during recent decades, but at least the increase in CO2 levels has helped reduce those harmful effects of deforestation, by helping the remaining forests to flourish, and has also helped reduce potential food shortages as the human population increases.

 

Trees emit oxygen mainly as a waste product. They need some of the oxygen, but emit 10 times as much as they absorb. It is estimated that one acre of trees in urban forests can produce enough oxygen for eight people and remove 188 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air.

 

Pay attention, children. Ask questions and learn. Don't accept everything as true that your teacher tells you at school. Think for yourselves. ????
 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If you don't understand that an excess of anything can be bad, in accordance with the definition of excess, then it is you who have lost the plot. A person can even die by drinking too much clean water, after a marathon run for example, but it would be silly to then describe clean water as a pollutant, to be avoided.

 

The issue that should be addressed is why a modest increase in a beneficial trace gas that has risen from 0.0286% of the atmosphere to just 0.04% of the atmosphere during the past 150 years, should cause so much alarm to so many people.

 

I could understand a reason for the alarm if those tiny quantities of CO2 were already toxic to some degree, like arsenic. Very small quantities of arsenic can be tolerated by the human body, and even smaller quantities might be beneficial. However, if those quantities that the body can tolerate are raised significantly, by 10 or 20 times, then serious toxicity or even death can result.

 

Carbon Dioxide is not in the same category as arsenic, or any of the other real pollutants emitted from the burning of fossil fuels that affect human health, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrous Oxides, heavy metals such as Lead, Mercury and Cadmium, and small particles of carbon that can get stuck in the lungs.

 

The survival of all creatures, including humans, is dependent upon their ability to distinguish between harmful and beneficial substances. The 40% increase in CO2 levels during the past 150 years is beneficial to the environment. However, there are many human activities which are harmful to the environment, such as the massive amount of deforestation that has occurred during recent decades, but at least the increase in CO2 levels has helped reduce those harmful effects of deforestation, by helping the remaining forests to flourish, and has also helped reduce potential food shortages as the human population increases.

 

Trees emit oxygen mainly as a waste product. They need some of the oxygen, but emit 10 times as much as they absorb. It is estimated that one acre of trees in urban forests can produce enough oxygen for eight people and remove 188 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air.

 

Pay attention, children. Ask questions and learn. Don't accept everything as true that your teacher tells you at school. Think for yourselves. ????
 

No mention of global warming or the lowering of the PH of the ocean. Don't see how that is beneficial to the environment. And even as far as plant life goes, why is more "beneficial?" The environment isn't a farm. And there is the little matter of increased stress on crop yields due to increasing heat. And not just on crops. Your assertions about deforestation are simply untrue. Forest In the western United States forests are being wiped out due to warming and other climate changes. And not just there.

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-stress-killing-forests-and-why-it-matters-14960/

Very one-dimensional thinking to consider CO2 as simply a fertilizer.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

No mention of global warming or the lowering of the PH of the ocean.

I've mentioned it before, probably several times. There is no uniform global warming. It's a theoretical, mathematical average of temperatures. During any relatively short period of a few decades, some parts of the globe will get colder, whilst some parts will get warmer, and other parts will retain approximately the same average temperature, taking into consideration the normal variation in weather patterns.

 

All natural life adapts to such changes, moving to cooler regions when the temperature becomes too hot, or moving to hotter regions when the temperature becomes too cold, or moving to wetter regions when the climate becomes too dry. This is why humans migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago, in search of greener pastures.

 

The problem with modern humans is they have a fixation on permanency. They build homes and cities which are stuck in one place. They tend to ignore the history of extreme weather events that have occurred in a particular region in the past, and mindlessly build their homes in flood plains and areas subject to hurricanes.

 

When the next extreme weather event occurs, the media almost automatically describes it as the worst event ever and even blames it on rising CO2 levels. Of course, sometimes it might be true that a particular event is the worst in living memory, which is just a few decades. However, those who are inquisitive and search the BOM records, or written narratives on previous disasters, will usually discover there was a worse flood, drought, hurricane or heat-wave, 50 or 100 or 150 or 200 years ago.

 

A similar situation applies to the pH of the oceans. There's an average pH of the ocean surfaces which is used. This average is estimated to have fallen from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years or so. A pH of 7 is neutral, and below 7 is acidic.

 

However, what is not mentioned by the alarmists, in case it causes people to think for themselves, is that the natural variation of the pH of the oceans is constantly changing according to the seasons of the year, the depth of the ocean, and the location of the ocean on the planet, and that this natural variation is far greater than the mathematical average of a change in surface pH from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years, just as the changes in temperature in any particular location, from day to night and from season to season, is far greater than the mathematically constructed average increase in global temperature of just 0.8 to 1 degree C  during the past 150 years.

 

Most sea creatures, unlike modern humans, are free to swim to whatever parts of the ocean suits them best. There are exceptions of course, such as reefs. They're stuck in one place, just like most of us humans. That's why we identify so much with the plight of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Oh you poor darlings! You are stuck in one place just like we are in our cities. We feel for you, but don't worry, we've got a plan. We're going to reduce CO2 levels so everything will remain the same. No changes in climate; no changes in ocean pH; no extreme weather events; everything will be benign, and we will bring hordes of tourists to see you. ????

 

And even as far as plant life goes, why is more "beneficial?" The environment isn't a farm. And there is the little matter of increased stress on crop yields due to increasing heat. And not just on crops. Your assertions about deforestation are simply untrue. Forest In the western United States forests are being wiped out due to warming and other climate changes. And not just there.

 

The environment isn't a farm? Wow! You really do seem to be divorced from the natural environment. All living animals are absolutely dependent upon plant growth. Even predators such as lions and tigers are dependent on plant growth which feeds the animals they attack and kill for food. Biodiversity in general is dependent on plant growth. Whether plants are grown using modern farming practices or just naturally without human intervention, the fertilization effect of CO2 still applies. No CO2 means no life. Abundant CO2 equates to abundant life.

 

As for deforestation, it is estimated the planet now has half the area covered in forests that it had around 10,000 years ago, due to human intervention for farming and the use of timber.

 

Burning of forests is a natural cycle that's been occurring for millions of years. Forests always regenerate afterwards. Check out the following site: http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/rising-ashes-forest-fires-give-way-new-growth

 

"In fact, fire is a natural part of the forest’s regeneration system. Most forest trees need to be exposed to fire every 50 to 100 years to invigorate new growth. As we found out in Yellowstone National Park nearly 20 years ago, suppressing forest fires too long can actually be detrimental to forests. Extreme efforts to prevent forest fires there led to a huge consumption of trees when fire finally broke out."

 

Hope you children have learned something new. ????
 

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

No CO2 means no life. Abundant CO2 equates to abundant life.

 

I think I should clarify this statement from my previous post, in case some of you get confused. ????

 

By 'abundant' I mean abundant within the context of Carbon Dioxide's role as a trace gas which is essential for photosynthesis to take place and plants to grow. Obviously too much of anything can be bad. A good analogy would be Vitamin C. A small quantity, such as 35 mg per day, is recommended to avoid health problems such as scurvy, but taking 10 times that amount every day, or even more than 350 mg per day, can be beneficial in other ways, according to many medical authorities and scientific research.