9 minutes ago, transam said:

It is pointless. You don't understand that the number of cars on the worldwide roads increases every year, millions and millions of them burning stuff. Mega modern day plane travel increased burned stuff. Everywhere you go it is heated or has air con, burning stuff....Recycling is not so big, stuff burned or buried to create it's stuff..

Don’t tell me I don’t know about the proliferation of cars on our roads or the consequences of air travel. I don’t own a car and have recently begun travelling by sea rather than plane. Takes longer, much longer, but so be it. 

 

That was not the point you made. You accused those protesting of owning cars and being responsible for the actions of previous generations. 

 

Now prove they are doing the things you accuse them of, particularly regarding car ownership.  

Edited September 21, 20196 yr by Bluespunk

4 minutes ago, evadgib said:

How did you get to Thailand?

Freighter travel these days. 

 

How about you?

 

https://www.langsamreisen.de/en/

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Don’t tell me I don’t know about the proliferation of cars on our roads or the consequences of air travel. I don’t own a car and have recently begun travelling by sea rather than plane. Takes longer, much longer, but so be it. 

 

That was not the point you made. You accused those protesting of owning cars and being responsible for the actions of previous generations. 

 

Now prove they are doing the things you accuse them of, particularly regarding car ownership.  

Are you saying the protesters do the same as you do....?

 

You know nothing about the link between cars, planes etc regarding climate change then...

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 20196 yr by transam

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Are you saying the protesters do the same as you do....?

 

 

No, I’m asking you to back up your allegations. 

 

As to the sentences you added to your post after i quoted you, you are wrong. 

Edited September 21, 20196 yr by Bluespunk

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, I’m asking you to back up your allegations. 

You have read my points, the increase in modern day living stuff is probably the reason for the worsening climate.

I pointed out that car ownership has rocketed, there are whole families out there that have cars. Times have changed and with it the climate.

Now if you are asking me to look up individually the protesters to see if they have a car, go on planes etc you are out of luck...

The millions of people marching in climate change demonstrations across 185 countries around the world are testament to the undeniable fact that climate change and environmentalism are increasingly political issues.

 

This is problematic for the illiberal and reactionary rightwing which has planted its flag firmly in climate change denial and relies heavily on attacking people who support environmentalism and acting on climate change.

 

As Environmentalism moves into the mainstream of politics and voters of all ages demand governments take action on the environment, it is the liberal progressive political parties that stand to win the environmental votes.

 

The illiberal and reactionary right wing have missed the bus on this so predictably rant about immigration and over population. Look no further than this thread for examples.

 

14 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, I’m asking you to back up your allegations. 

 

As to the sentences you added to your post after i quoted you, you are wrong. 

You are responding to a man who could not be bothered to inquire as to the fate of a family and house 3 kilometers down the road -being overly bothered by the amount of weed lapping on his own driveway.

 

He would be utterly incapable of comprehending the rest of the world.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The millions of people marching in climate change demonstrations across 185 countries around the world are testament to the undeniable fact that climate change and environmentalism are increasingly political issues.

 

This is problematic for the illiberal and reactionary rightwing which has planted its flag firmly in climate change denial and relies heavily on attacking people who support environmentalism and acting on climate change.

 

As Environmentalism moves into the mainstream of politics and voters of all ages demand governments take action on the environment, it is the liberal progressive political parties that stand to win the environmental votes.

 

The illiberal and reactionary right wing have missed the bus on this so predictably rant about immigration and over population. Look no further than this thread for examples.

 

A good mix of truth and lies, with a pinch of innuendo and a sprinkle of pomposity.

A brilliant example of demagogy.

The right wing and the left wing, meanwhile, are deciding how to share the cake.

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

A good mix of truth and lies, with a pinch of innuendo and a sprinkle of pomposity.

A brilliant example of demagogy.

The right wing and the left wing, meanwhile, are deciding how to share the cake.

Well as I point out, environmentalism is not an issue the illiberal, reactionary rightwing have a credible position on and hence will not benefit from the environmental votes.

 

A point you fail to address.

 

 

22 minutes ago, transam said:

You have read my points, the increase in modern day living stuff is probably the reason for the worsening climate.

I pointed out that car ownership has rocketed, there are whole families out there that have cars. Times have changed and with it the climate.

Now if you are asking me to look up individually the protesters to see if they have a car, go on planes etc you are out of luck...

No, you specifically accused those protesting of being responsible for that which they protested against. 

 

In effect accused them of hypocrisy.

 

Now prove it.  

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well as I point out, environmentalism is not an issue the illiberal, reactionary rightwing have a credible position on and hence will not benefit from the environmental votes.

 

A point you fail to address.

 

 

I was more serious some 100 posts ago, if you are interested in my opinion; now i'm more interested in a cup of tea, hope it's not too hot for you folks.

Would you die for your principles ?

I won't.

Agree or disagree with her, I think that anyone who actually listens to her will see that she is an exceptional human being.   Why not take a minute and see for yourself!

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_climate?language=en

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhQVustYV24

 

Edited September 21, 20196 yr by ricklev

3 minutes ago, ricklev said:

Agree or disagree with her, I think that anyone who actually listens to her will see that she is an exceptional human being.   Why not take a minute and see for yourself!

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_climate?language=en

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhQVustYV24

 

No doubt she's genuine, it's the ones who are pulling the strings in the backstage who give me the creeps.

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Don’t tell me I don’t know about the proliferation of cars on our roads or the consequences of air travel. I don’t own a car and have recently begun travelling by sea rather than plane. Takes longer, much longer, but so be it. 

 

That was not the point you made. You accused those protesting of owning cars and being responsible for the actions of previous generations. 

 

Now prove they are doing the things you accuse them of, particularly regarding car ownership.  

Shipping is responsible for twice the CO2 emissions as airlines.

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Shipping is responsible for twice the CO2 emissions as airlines.

On an individual one for one basis?

 

Every individual ship emits twice that of every individual plane?

 

Links to that data please. 

49 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The millions of people marching in climate change demonstrations across 185 countries around the world are testament to the undeniable fact that climate change and environmentalism are increasingly political issues.

 

This is problematic for the illiberal and reactionary rightwing which has planted its flag firmly in climate change denial and relies heavily on attacking people who support environmentalism and acting on climate change.

 

As Environmentalism moves into the mainstream of politics and voters of all ages demand governments take action on the environment, it is the liberal progressive political parties that stand to win the environmental votes.

 

The illiberal and reactionary right wing have missed the bus on this so predictably rant about immigration and over population. Look no further than this thread for examples.

 

if climate change was considered an issue for right wing politics, the leftists and <deleted> would be saying it isn't, and protesting about something else

Just now, cyril sneer said:

if climate change was considered an issue for right wing politics, the leftists and <deleted> would be saying it isn't, and protesting about something else

What is <deleted> Cyril?

 

By the way-has anyone taken a Cyril seriously since the Gallipoli Campaign?

 

Far,far to many Cyrils on that expedition.

17 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Brilliant! The confusion was my own ????

I'm glad the ???????? & ???????? are providing the background entertainment via the ????

Well yes, your comments on climate change and environmentalism demonstrate your confusion 

9 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

On an individual one for one basis?

 

Every individual ship emits twice that of every individual plane?

 

Links to that data please. 

Why must the replies always have to begin with a false premise.

Replacing air travel with sea travel is unlikely to be effective at reducing CO2. You remove some airplanes but add some ships. a 12 hour trip turns into a week of massive diesels churning and pushing against water and currents. leaking oil and waste as they go.

Unless you go with sail power, your not going to fix anything.

Some inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. 

 

Back and forth bickering posts and replies have been removed. 

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Why must the replies always have to begin with a false premise.

Replacing air travel with sea travel is unlikely to be effective at reducing CO2. You remove some airplanes but add some ships. a 12 hour trip turns into a week of massive diesels churning and pushing against water and currents. leaking oil and waste as they go.

Unless you go with sail power, your not going to fix anything.

My response to you was based on the statement made by you (in response to my post about how I travel long distance), that shipping has double the carbon footprint of flight. 

 

I asked for a perfectly reasonable clarification on that statement.  

 

Being that my reasons for sea travel are to reduce my footprint. 

 

Now you said shipping produces twice that of flight.

 

So does that mean you are saying that each ship produces twice the co2 of each plane on an individual basis? 

 

Is my choice going to reduce or double my individual carbon footprint.?

 

If double, links to that data please. 

Edited September 21, 20196 yr by Bluespunk

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This young lady has managed to energize people of her generation, push threats to our climate into the social discourse and wind up the usual suspects.

 

Well done young lady.

 

 

She is just a mouth piece of her commie parents.

 

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

Don't worry - everything will get better as long as we pay trillions of dollars to the IPCC. 

Nonsense. Since 1989, the year of its inception, through 2018 the IPCC has received a total of 160,022,000 in swiss francs. The 2018 budget came to about 8,000,000 swiss francs.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/080320190344-Doc2-Budget.pdf

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

My response to you was based on the claim put forward by you, in response to my post about how I travel long distance, that shipping has double the carbon footprint of flight. 

 

I asked for a perfectly reasonable clarification on that statement.  

 

Being that my reasons for sea travel are to reduce my footprint. 

 

Now you said shipping produces twice that of flight.

 

So does that mean you are saying that each ship produces twice the co2 of each plane on an individual basis? 

 

Is my choice going to reduce or double my individual carbon footprint.?

 

If double, links to that data please. 

Water offers much more attrition than air, that alone should tell you something.

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

My response to you was based on the statement made by you (in response to my post about how I travel long distance), that shipping has double the carbon footprint of flight. 

 

I asked for a perfectly reasonable clarification on that statement.  

 

Being that my reasons for sea travel are to reduce my footprint. 

 

Now you said shipping produces twice that of flight.

 

So does that mean you are saying that each ship produces twice the co2 of each plane on an individual basis? 

 

Is my choice going to reduce or double my individual carbon footprint.?

 

If double, links to that data please. 

It doesn't really matter if it is only about you. I thought you were imagining that you were a pioneer of CO2 reduction by setting an example to follow by going by sea. I see now you just wanted to share your travel plans in case there was virtue points available.

6 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It doesn't really matter if it is only about you. I thought you were imagining that you were a pioneer of CO2 reduction by setting an example to follow by going by sea. I see now you just wanted to share your travel plans in case there was virtue points available.

Nope, I’ve always been clear while I support and would welcome government action to curb climate change on a global scale, i believe every individual should take personal responsibility for their own behaviour. 

 

My mentioning my method of travel was in response to posters pointing out the effect of air travel, one of whom was implying I was being hypocritical and then in a follow up post further implied I was lying about my methods of travel.

Edited September 21, 20196 yr by Bluespunk

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Water offers much more attrition than air, that alone should tell you something.

Does it tell me idea travel will double or reduce my individual footprint? 

 

Because the research i have done into this clearly supports the latter. 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The millions of people marching in climate change demonstrations across 185 countries around the world are testament to the undeniable fact that climate change and environmentalism are increasingly political issues.

 

This is problematic for the illiberal and reactionary rightwing which has planted its flag firmly in climate change denial and relies heavily on attacking people who support environmentalism and acting on climate change.

 

As Environmentalism moves into the mainstream of politics and voters of all ages demand governments take action on the environment, it is the liberal progressive political parties that stand to win the environmental votes.

 

The illiberal and reactionary right wing have missed the bus on this so predictably rant about immigration and over population. Look no further than this thread for examples.

 

Liberals are just saps being taken for a ride by Leftists using Climate change nonsense for their power grab. 

Just now, chokrai said:

Liberals are just saps being taken for a ride by Leftists using Climate change nonsense for their power grab. 

Please, can you lighten up on the facts? Just too much data in your post.

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. Since 1989, the year of its inception, through 2018 the IPCC has received a total of 160,022,000 in swiss francs. The 2018 budget came to about 8,000,000 swiss francs.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/080320190344-Doc2-Budget.pdf

Exactly who owns the organisations issuing Carbon Credits?

 

As previously mentioned (though deleted by moderators), Carbon Credit price has gone from a low of €4.38 per tonne in May 2017 to €13.82 per tonne in April 2018. According to the World Bank, the the total value for Carbon Credits was estimated at $82B (2018 figures).

 

Carbon Credits are traded as a commodity. As I mentioned in the outset, the question is (in reply to your attempts to scream , "lies" and "nonsense") exactly WHO is profiting from charging people for polluting the earths atmosphere. And more importantly, what impact does it have on the climate?

 

Here's the answer: none.