[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 425684)
Message
File  []
close
_106024950_052666919-1.jpg
425684425684425684
>> No. 425684 Anonymous
5th April 2019
Friday 11:36 pm
425684 spacer
So am I the only one who is getting a bit annoyed by this whole Greta Thunberg cult, or am I just too much of a cold hearted cynic that the world would be better off without?

I don't doubt the legitimate concern of her generation over climate change, after all it will fall to them to sort out the utter fucking mess that we have left the planet in, but all the awards that she is now being showered with are IMO just middle aged and old people's guilt over their own failure to save the planet's climate despite having had decades of prior warning, and who lost their way and succumbed to high carbon footprint consumerism somewhere between 1990s road protest villages and today's school runs in a 4x4. None of it feels sincere or genuine, it's more like, yeah, just take all these awards and shut the hell up already.

And parents whose children now protest every Friday or so are now engaging in pissing matches on twitter and Instagram to show off which one of their kids gets the most involved. As one commenter said, nothing good has ever come of a youth protest movement that was applauded by parents.
Expand all images.
>> No. 425686 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:23 am
425686 spacer
>I don't doubt the legitimate concern of her generation over climate change

How can they have any other, it's pumped into them from birth along with whatever else is flavour of the month. When some little kid starts talking in line with what the adults are saying, the approval is just that of how successful their conditioning has been on the younger generation. I'm not being funny but kids are pretty idiotic when it comes to the wider world (not that they can't be highly intuitive).

The cult being built up around her is just another cog in the propaganda machine, the same machine that trained her to say it in the first place.
>> No. 425687 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:29 am
425687 spacer
>>425686
You're so cool, thinking for yourself.
>> No. 425688 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:32 am
425688 spacer
>>425686

Read the IPCC report. This is not a fad, this is not propaganda, this is not conditioning, it is an irrefutable catastrophe. If we do not act now, young people will inherit a climate that is irreparably damaged and drastically more hostile to human life.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
>> No. 425689 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:33 am
425689 spacer
>>425687
If you think a little kid knows bugger all about the world other than what its been told, you're a moron
>> No. 425690 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:38 am
425690 spacer
>>425688
Flavour of the month or set in stone fact, it doesn't make a difference. I'm not being conspiratorial here, I don't care one way or the other but the narrative is being pushed and the girl is simply part of the narrative.
>> No. 425691 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:56 am
425691 spacer
>>425688

> and drastically more hostile to human life

Worth noting that this is mainly something that concerns our species. A planet that has bounced back from several global extinction events in its history will shake off the human impact to it without a problem no matter what we do to it. It is us who depend on global climate conditions remaining within a very narrow corridor of tolerable temperatures, rainfall, and sea levels and polar ice cap extension. And even just 15,000 years ago towards the end of the last ice age, the global climate would never have supported a human population of seven billion even with our current technology because it was far too cold. Conversely, during much of the Mesozoic, sea levels were tens of metres higher and there were probably no ice caps at all and global average temperature was in the mid-20s Celsius. Life was doing just fine with all that going on. And life will adapt eventually even to the very sudden climatic changes of the last 300 years. But human life and human existence and civilisation will be disrupted by a one-metre sea level rise or the Gulfstream dying down or widespread drought and soil erosion, and that is the point. In the greater scheme of things, it's about saving our own arses, while life itself in the long run, like I said, will be almost entirely unaffected on a time scale of millions of years.
>> No. 425692 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:57 am
425692 spacer
I have no idea who she is but then I don't own a tv so not being in tune with the zeitguiest isn't much of a revelation.

>>425686

I remember when I was young I used to get praise like I was a genius when I repeated back the opinions of adults around me. When I started to form ideas of my own suddenly I didn't know what I was talking about and was stupid. I presume this child is just doing that.

>>425689

I don't think most adults know much about the world other than what they have been told. When was the last time you performed a scientific experiment to verify a peer reviewed paper, charted the path of the planet's to confirm their course is consistent with going around the sun or visited a war zone to verify the situation on the ground.

Shifts of perspective are rare and most people are far too close minded to consider anything beyond the culture they grew up in and I doubt she has lived a varied enough life yet to update and review her beliefs.
>> No. 425693 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:07 am
425693 spacer
>>425690
>the narrative is being pushed
The idea that it's being pushed reveals a conspirational mindset. That may not be a specific conspiracy theory, but still. The line of self-interest is much less clear than with the converse argument: That we're going to be fine.

The next few decades are going to be incredibly grim and incredibly stupid if current trends continue unabated. If you want a vision of the future, imagine the crew of a destroyer livestreaming themselves flossing in front of a torpedoed refugee ship, forever.
>> No. 425694 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:11 am
425694 spacer
>>425692

>and I doubt she has lived a varied enough life yet to update and review her beliefs.

That's kind of asking a lot from a 16-year-old though.

I just read that she has Asperger's. Not sure what to really do with that information. She apparently said that without Aspergers, she would not have her dogged determination.
>> No. 425695 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:19 am
425695 spacer
>>425691

Quite when algie first stalked the the earth they poisoned and killed practically every living thing that had come before them by releasing a highly volatile corrosive chemical called oxygen. Once they finished polluting the sea they then fillies the atmosphere with it causing massive climate change that covered the entire surface of the earth with ice for several million years.

When plants came about they formed cellar structure that had never existed before that couldn't be chemically broken down and their dead matter covered the entire earth to a level several meters deep.

People who think we are capable of fucking up the earth as badly as they did and that life on earth won't adapt to carry on are quite presumptive about their significance.

It is also with mentioning the current sea level is in a geological sense absurdly low. The average sea level across most of the time we have been able to chart is about 100 meters higher than it is now. We are basically operating on the good fortune of the current location of Antarctica and presuming that to be the norm.
>> No. 425696 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:28 am
425696 spacer
>>425693

There is nothing conspiratorial about acknowledging that you get consensus in beliefs regardless of their validity.

I grew up in a time where food products were purposely fat free and you should avoid eating eggs that trend has entirely reversed. I have seen nuclear power switch from being the thing environmentalism was against to to something seriously considered for it's 'green' virtues.

No one is free from bias everyone has their beliefs it later turns out aren't true, and regularly the momentum is decades behind the cutting edge of knowledge.
>> No. 425697 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:28 am
425697 spacer
>>425695

Like I said, our species and our civilisation depend on conditions on this planet remaining within a very narrow corridor of parameters. While the Earth has looked radically different from the way it does now at different times in its history, and at least in the last 500 million years was never completely inhospitable to complex life. To life as such, it really does not matter in any way, shape, or form if sea levels are one, two, or even ten metres higher.
>> No. 425698 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:31 am
425698 spacer
>>425694

If it is asking a lot for a 16 year old then I don't think it is unreasonable to dismiss her opinion as not well thought out and popularist, and therefore no different to asking Russell Brand about his political views.
>> No. 425699 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:52 am
425699 spacer
>>425692
>I don't think most adults know much about the world other than what they have been told.

I don't disagree but I'll leave that judgement until I've heard what they have to say and how they say it. With a 16 year old, unless they're supernatural or are an 160iq savant I can say almost with certainty that they don't have a scooby doo.

>>425693
>The idea that it's being pushed reveals a conspirational mindset.
Not at all, we can call agree greens and exercise and fresh air are good things and not an plot to poison us but when some government agency comes up with an idea to promote that, or an advertising agency plasters a pair of wobbly tits next to can of coke with the suggestion that sipping a sickly brown syrup will have those badboys bouncing on your bonce, they're pushing that idea, that's the narrative.

There's certainly a lot of that going on from lots of sources, you can't turn around without getting a facefull of impending global disaster and the girl is a good avatar to promote that message, she's cute and a sperg and everyone can coo and pinch her cheek and nod along because she's saying what they were already thinking.

Now you're going to think i'm some cunt who wants to have the freedom to burn piles of tires next to a primary school.
The whole climate change thing as it stands in the west seems like a bit of a moot point really, i'm really all for eco fascism in a way but the way it's utilised is just as a means of control.
The yellow vests thing in France was a prime example, they used climate change to pile on more taxes on diesel drivers, while all the diesel cars in France pump out less pollution per year than a single large container ship loaded with crap sailing back and fourth between Shanghai and Marseilles.

It's a matter of scales, if the UK just stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, no coal power, no cars, no heavy industry, went back to some Arcadian agrarian existence or just disappeared into a black hole, it'd take just a year or so for China alone to make up that pollution shortfall with their own increased pollution output.

It's basically all pointless and not really about stopping climate change or it somewhat is and they just think it's also a great excuse to coerce and fuck you up the bum.
>> No. 425700 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 2:08 am
425700 spacer

bvkly.jpg
425700425700425700
>>425698

Nobody's opinion matters on questions of fact. Climate change is happening and it will have catastrophic effects on humanity unless we act urgently. I think this girl deserves some degree of praise for bringing attention to these facts, but it's ultimately irrelevant either way.

>>425699

China's CO2 emissions peaked in 2013. They are a global leader in renewable energy and buy more electric cars than the rest of the world combined. China emits about the same amount of CO2 as the US and the EU combined, but their population is almost twice as large and we've outsourced our most polluting manufacturing to China. They're doing the hard work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/business/china-hastens-the-world-toward-an-electric-car-future.html

Per-capita emissions in the west are dramatically higher than in the developing world; it is incumbent on us to take moral leadership and meet them in the middle rather than expecting them to bear the costs of CO2 abatement without enjoying any of the benefits. It is also incumbent on us to invest in the development of sustainable technologies.
>> No. 425702 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 3:18 am
425702 spacer
>>425700
>Nobody's opinion matters on questions of fact. Climate change is happening and it will have catastrophic effects on humanity unless we act urgently. I think this girl deserves some degree of praise for bringing attention to these facts, but it's ultimately irrelevant either way.

Firstly I don't think you know what facts are and how they relate to option and truth. Global warming is a 'fact' because it is the 'opinion' of a majority of climate change scientist that it is the 'truth'. It is entirely possible that the current models are wrong because of some additional factor not considered. Or one of the minority theories is true. What is in the popular arena as a 'fact is just a consensus of opinion and interpretation. Literally look at any 'fact' or theory that has been debunked that was once the forerunner to demonstrate this point.

Which brings on to the second and more important point. This girl is not an expert she has no professional reputation. She is just believing what she was told by someone else who was told by someone else.
Does she have a reasoned explanation for why the ice volume on Antarctica is currently growing and what that means to the predictions? Is she aware of the latest data at all? No she is not an expert and is therefore not a idea champion for any cause. I would much rather we listen to scientists directly then use the hunger games as an instruction manual for how to do politics. I would much rather that we live in a technocracy then we treat normal peoples opinions as mattering and informing policy on these things.
>> No. 425703 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 3:51 am
425703 spacer
>>425699
>The yellow vests thing in France was a prime example, they used climate change to pile on more taxes on diesel drivers, while all the diesel cars in France pump out less pollution per year than a single large container ship loaded with crap sailing back and fourth between Shanghai and Marseilles.
Honestly I'd say this is less part of the narrative, and more just because of our cack-handed political institutions
If we accept global warming is real and needs action to avoid or mitigate, but also have a current consensus on the role of the state, etc and few current environmental problems, we run into a problem pretty quickly: The consensus role of the state differs from the role the state has to take to be the primary actor against climate change. Politicians can't really consciously turn the state around or give it much more power in the market without a crisis to justify it, so they can only use existing powers. By the time the crisis that would justify expanded powers arrives, it will be too late. The existing powers can only do wanky things like impose petrol taxes, rather than something serious like throwing billions of pounds at developing environmentally friendly technologies and infrastructure. That may have been perfectly acceptable in our pre-1980s vision of the state, but it's no longer the done thing. (Except in defence procurement, har-har.)

So what's left is for the state to pray to god the private sector does it alone, which doesn't appear to be happening. So you get the spectacle of the government decrying global warming without actually taking radical action.
(That probably sounds like I'm pushing for a big lefty solution. I'm not, I've already basically accepted we're doing nothing. It's just to illustrate the kind of choice-problem faced. The same kind of thing probably happens inside companies. Shareholders want high returns and to be alive. Now if only every other shareholder would take lower returns, I could boost mine a bit in the short term...)
>> No. 425705 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 8:47 am
425705 spacer

C5GobeBWYAAXKER.jpg
425705425705425705
I think the debate should be reframed. Most people want to breathe clean air. Most people want to drink clean water. Most people don't want to drive animals to extinction. Most people do not want to fill the seas with plastic. The way the debate is framed at the moment it makes most people feel like helpless bystanders who can't make a difference rather than encouraging them to take their own little part.

An increasing number of people are eating meat alternatives and Quorn have found that this is largely driven by health concerns rather than not eating meat for ethical reasons. Rather than scaremongering or talking in vast terms that make people feel insignificant it needs to be framed in a way where people can see a direct and tangible positive change.

>>425688
>If we do not act now

>>425700
>unless we act urgently

I loathe language like this, but I think that may be because the type of people I've encountered IRL who use it tend to be rather clueless so they rely on vague and emotive platitudes that make them feel nice and fuzzy inside, despite the fact they're not really doing anything practical about the issue, because it "raises awareness" and they want to be able to take credit for doing their part when those actually being constructive manage to achieve something.
>> No. 425706 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 10:30 am
425706 spacer

climate-hoax.jpg
425706425706425706

>> No. 425707 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 10:43 am
425707 spacer

af908cb3d1143a404b1cfadfaf1e1b16ed5cb517a2d9b9e726.jpg
425707425707425707
>>425699

>The yellow vests thing in France was a prime example, they used climate change to pile on more taxes on diesel drivers, while all the diesel cars in France pump out less pollution per year than a single large container ship loaded with crap sailing back and fourth between Shanghai and Marseilles. 

Similarly, in Germany, the old debate of a speed limit on the famous Autobahns is being touted again at the moment as a simple and effective means of cutting back CO2 emission. There are estimates that a 130 kph/80 mph speed limit will reduce CO2 emission by two to three million tons a year over the current status where some 60 percent of German motorways are still unregulated. In the greater scheme of things though, that is not even a drop in the ocean, considering that the U.S. alone releases five billion tons a year into the atmosphere, and China twice that even.

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

Luckily, ze Germans aren't easily swayed. When the debate unfolded again a couple of months ago, after years of dormancy, protest was fierce and the ruling coalition parties are mostly afraid to even touch the issue lest they incur the wrath of tens of millions of voters.

I've got close friends in Germany that I visit regularly, and driving on the Autobahn there is just a joy. Road discipline is incredible, and even at 110 mph, traffic runs efficiently and orderly in a way that only the Germans seem to be able to pull off. If ever there was a people who were meant to drive fast, it's truly the Germans.
>> No. 425708 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 11:51 am
425708 spacer
>>425706

Makes sense I too sacrifice goats to please the gods and bring about the rains, just in case.
>> No. 425709 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 11:59 am
425709 spacer
>>425702

>Firstly I don't think you know what facts are and how they relate to option and truth. Global warming is a 'fact' because it is the 'opinion' of a majority of climate change scientist that it is the 'truth'.

That's not how it works. The data says that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising well beyond usual trends. The data also says that global temperatures (particularly ocean temperatures) are rising well beyond usual trends, in a manner that is correlated with CO2 levels. The opinion of climate scientists isn't particularly relevant; there simply isn't any alternative explanation for the data that makes any mathematical sense. All of that data is in the public domain, as is a full explanation of how that data was gathered. It has been checked and re-checked and re-checked for methodological validity and nobody has found any significant errors. You're welcome to come up with your own explanation, but that explanation is only valid if it accounts for the full picture of evidence.

>why the ice volume on Antarctica is currently growing and what that means to the predictions?

That's not true. Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice, with a net result of rising sea levels. The rate of loss of land ice is accelerating. The total global glacier volume has fallen by about 18%.

https://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-ice-volume-anew.html

>I would much rather we listen to scientists directly

But you aren't listening to scientists, nor (more importantly) are you basing your conclusions on the overall picture given by the best available data. You're cherry-picking data points and blatantly misinterpreting the process of science to support a specious argument.

>>425705

>it needs to be framed in a way where people can see a direct and tangible positive change.

I'm not sure how we can do that in any way that isn't blatantly deceptive. We're beyond the point of positive change - we're now in damage limitation territory. Things are going to get worse, the only question is whether they get a bit worse or catastrophically worse. Personally, I think the only emotionally appealing argument that is concordant with the evidence is something akin to the Blitz spirit - we're in the shit, but we might just get through it if we all pull together.

If we don't do something drastic now, Norfolk and the Netherlands will disappear, as will cities in the Pacific Rim with a total population of ~400m. If we don't seriously cut CO2 emissions, we're likely to see around a billion refugees due to drought and resource conflicts. It's pretty hard to put a positive spin on that.

>>425707

I think that focusing on per-country rather than per-capita emissions is a dangerous trap. China's population is more than that of Europe and North America combined. We can't reasonably expect that Chinese people should live like medieval peasants just because there's a lot of them. On a per-capita basis, China is doing pretty well, especially when you consider their level of economic development. The average Chinese person produces about half the CO2 emissions of the average American.

China still needs to cut their emissions, but it seems blatantly unfair to dump the responsibility solely on them. Why should they bother if we aren't even trying? It's like a billionaire saying that he shouldn't have to pay taxes because there's only one of him but loads of poor people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
>> No. 425710 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 12:04 pm
425710 spacer
I feel like a big issue is that our current way of life should have ended years ago, now people just don't want to let go of it but a lot needs to change to ensure our survival. Too many people are out there thinking "Nah it'll be fine they're just exaggerating it all", they'll only really care when it actually impacts them and by then it'll be too late.
>> No. 425711 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:37 pm
425711 spacer
>>425710
How has the dramatically high CO2 emission rate per capita of developing countries been derived?
>> No. 425712 Anonymous
6th April 2019
Saturday 1:41 pm
425712 spacer

i-cant-lie-to-you-about-your-chances-but-you-have-.jpg
425712425712425712
>>425709

>I think that focusing on per-country rather than per-capita emissions is a dangerous trap.

Then again, if you actually go by the per-capita chart at the top of that wikipedia article, suddenly you have Saudi Arabia and the Middle East with a per capita CO2 production that dwarfs that of many known notorious CO2 producing nations, while at the same time Saudi Arabia only has a population of 33 million or 0.7 percent of the entire world population. It's swings and roundabouts really with this kind of statistical climate data.

And China really only has a below average per capita CO2 footprint because despite decates of industrial growth, vast swaths of its population still live a largely agricultural lifestyle the way we did in the UK over 300 years ago. As industrial growth and progress will continue to spread, so will more and more Chinese peasants adopt technologies and lifestyles that will ramp up their per capita CO2 production.

I think we are fucked either way at this point. Our global civilisation depends on fossil fuels in a way that means that it will simply collapse if we stop producing CO2. And it's not just cars or factories, but also things like aviation or global shipping or the Internet itself.

The only way we can maintain levels of energy consumption that we need to sustain our civilisation will be to have working hydrogen fusion reactors in the future IMO. Once we've mastered the technology, a second or third generation fusion reactor could likely be made small enough to power anything from your entire home to a car or an aircraft. Considering that battery powered cars need rare earths and other minerals that simply don't exist in enough quantity globally to go fully electric, I think that is going to be the only viable option in the long-term future.

But with even the most optimistic projections not expecting working and commercially viable fusion reactors before the year 2050, it's kind of a safe bet to assume that we are just going to fuck up the Earth's climate even more in the mean time.
>> No. 425725 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 1:06 pm
425725 spacer

1024px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
425725425725425725
>>425709

>The opinion of climate scientists isn't particularly relevant; there simply isn't any alternative explanation for the data that makes any mathematical sense.

There was a time when data indicating climate change was more or less made up of statistical outliers, meaning measurements outside the norm but which could still by and large be explained by erratic fluctuations of the long-term climate. And then you also had certain fluctuations over a few thousand years since the last Ice Age, with the Atlantic Period (ca. 8000-5000 before present) being the warmest. Which, interestingly, had even higher temperatures than we see today. But what is very unique, and scientists know this from sea ice core samples and also from terrestrial sediments such as river beds and lake bottoms, is the pace at which temperatures are now rising. Before the Atlantic Period, there was the Boreal Period, also lasting around 2000 to 3000 years, which had a global climate similar to ours today, but the shift from Boreal to Atlantic was quite gradual and occurred within the space of around 500 to a thousand years. Whereas today's climate change has happened in a time period of less than 200 years. Even when considering that global warming was preceded by the Little Ice Age which lasted from ca. 1300 to 1850, the steep gradient of increase in temperatures that we have today is simply unseen in all of recorded climate history of the last ten thousand years.

When measurements and data start to leave the scope of your preceding statistical data, there is always a point where you can still think "This could go either way", and that's when scientists' opinions actually matter, because it will not be an open and shut case, yet. During the 1960s to 1980s, global warming was a theory that was being circulated increasingly among scientists, and there was data beginning to come in that was suggesting that climate change could be starting to happen. But when you look at the graph, it still could have gone either way at that time. By now though, fifty years on, you simply have no way of denying anymore that something extraordinary is going on, and something where indeed an individual scientist's personal opinion becomes largely irrelevant.
>> No. 425732 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 5:29 pm
425732 spacer
>>425725
It seems odd to imagine that anyone could take into account that there are billions of humans all producing various waste products in a closed system and think that it would all work itself out perpetually the way it is and be fine. Yet most people apparently do think that and have for a long time.
>> No. 425733 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 6:01 pm
425733 spacer
>>425732

Firstly it isn't a closed system there is that big ball of fire in the sky, along with the gases that escape the atmosphere and the things that crash into the earth and the times the earth quite literally throws up on itself.


>and think that it would all work itself out perpetually the way it is and be fine. Yet most people apparently do think that and have for a long time.

you are reasoning back to front from already knowing the conclusion, there would be no reason to assume that plants and algae wouldn't start thriving in a warmer CO2 rich environment and multiply in a way that compensates for the changes and therefore the system would naturally correct. After all that is what usually happens in a food chain when the food supply increases.
>> No. 425734 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 6:05 pm
425734 spacer
>>425733
>Firstly it isn't a closed system
It's a closed system in the ways that are relevant to the matter.
>you are reasoning back to front from already knowing the conclusion
I know the conclusion because it's observable in nature for me as it is for everyone else. Like when plants and algae multiply so much they choke ponds, killing all the other life in them.
>> No. 425735 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 6:09 pm
425735 spacer
>>425732

A lot of people just badly over-estimate the resilience of human civilisation, or under-estimate the human impacts. You see the same train of thought from many Brexiteers, e.g. "we survived the war so we can survive this" - true, but a lot of people didn't survive the war and pretty much everyone had a miserable time.
>> No. 425736 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 6:13 pm
425736 spacer
>>425733

Look, just read the IPCC report or fuck off. All the points you're raising have been thoroughly addressed by people infinitely more knowledgeable than me and I really can't be bothered re-hashing them for your benefit. You're confusing your own ignorance for a lack of evidence.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
>> No. 425738 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 6:31 pm
425738 spacer
>>425736
And the IPCC can't ever be wrong!
>> No. 425739 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 6:59 pm
425739 spacer
>>425733

The earth can cope well enough no matter how much CO2 is in the air. Algae and plants and deep sea dwelling squids and so on will be just fine whether there's an ice age or an asteroid hits. Humans and the vast majority of land based animals, on the other hand, will more than likely be fucked.

We've built ourselves into a deep reliance on what is really a very fragile ecological-economy, and even before global warming starts causing serious trouble, we're rapidly out breeding what the capacity of the planet to supply us with resources. If we carry on at our current rate we'll be nothing more than an intriguing archaeological curiosity for the bird-people who rule the planet a billion years from now.
>> No. 425740 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 6:59 pm
425740 spacer
>>425738
You know better do you?
>> No. 425741 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 7:00 pm
425741 spacer
>>425733

>there would be no reason to assume that plants and algae wouldn't start thriving in a warmer CO2 rich environment and multiply in a way that compensates for the changes and therefore the system would naturally correct.

There are already some scientific findings that suggest that, provided that the ambient air has low levels of growth inhibiting pollutants, plants actually grow stronger and faster in an atmosphere with increased levels of CO2. So on a large enough time scale, if we stopped producing any CO2 from fossil and other fuels today, the excess carbon dioxide would be reabsorbed into the Earth's vegetation, and within geological timescales would then even be redeposited in the Earth's crust as new coal and crude oil.

The problem is that plants will simply not grow fast enough to catch all the CO2 that humans release. Especially with all the deforestation that tropical rainforests but also forests in temperate and arctic regions have seen in the last few decades. There are estimates that the Earth would need three million years to produce the quantity of crude oil that we burn every year globally.


>>425735

>A lot of people just badly over-estimate the resilience of human civilisation, or under-estimate the human impacts.

It depends on what you mean by resilience. Probably even in the worst case scenario of global warming, human civilisation will not be wiped out as such. You will always have pockets of surviving populations that live in relatively favourable conditions and will be able to sustain themselves. What seems a given though is that civilisation as we know it today will not be sustainable even in less-than-worst-case scenarios.

Either we really manage to turn things around for us, or we are going to need to go through another cataclysmic event like the Great Plague which wiped out almost half of Europe's population. At the time, it indeed had a positive effect on resource sustainability. In the early Middle Ages, Europe was actually overpopulated, at least with regards to agricultural technology and the ability to produce food for the people. Deforestation in many European countries was much higher than it is today, with nearly every speck of land used for agriculture, again, with the low agricultural yields of the time. And then when half the population was wiped out in the Great Plague, many fields lay fallow and after about a generation or two saw a widespread return of dense forests. Some even believe that the Little Ice Age was caused in part by a reduced human population and nature being able to recover from human activity.
>> No. 425742 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 7:18 pm
425742 spacer
>>425736

You misunderstand my position, I'm not arguing against global warming I'm arguing against the ignorance of concluding that the current position was the inevitable conclusion and how could anyone have ever thought differently.

It is kind of like saying “how could the people of the past be so dumb to not know X" for a long time there were very respectable scientific beliefs we were heading towards global freezing, or that current environmental factors were caused by the earth expanding we obviously now have more information which has led to the current scientific consensus.
>> No. 425745 Anonymous
8th April 2019
Monday 10:55 pm
425745 spacer

4642.jpg
425745425745425745
>>425742

> I'm arguing against the ignorance of concluding that the current position was the inevitable conclusion and how could anyone have ever thought differently.

Except, they didn't think differently. The big oil companies knew very definitely through projections from their own scientists, from about the early 1980s or perhaps even earlier, that the CO2 that was being released by burning their products would lead to quite dramatic global warming:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings


>It is kind of like saying “how could the people of the past be so dumb to not know X" for a long time there were very respectable scientific beliefs we were heading towards global freezing

Again, this may have been commonly accepted pop science until the late 70s (my mum told me that she was indeed taught in geography in school that there would be another ice age in the not too distant future), but the accepted truth at least from about 1980 among a growing number of reputable scientists was that global warming was a more than likely consequence of fossil fuel consumption.

The oil industry's fault really is that it knew what was coming but did nothing, and if you read the Guardian article, spent millions over the following decades bribing politicians and lawmakers and blocking eco friendly laws and initiatives around the globe as they saw fit. In that respect, it's not entirely unlike the tobacco industry, which also knew for decades that their products were giving people cancer and spent years lobbying against anti-smoking laws, until it was left with no choice but to admit to the harmful effects of smoking from the 1960s and 70s onwards. The obvious problem being that while you can make a population healthier and undo a lot of the damage of smoking within just a few years by encouraging people to quit smoking, all the CO2 that we've already blown into the atmosphere is going to stay there for quite some time in the future, and our entire civilisation is so heavily dependent on fossil fuel now that we can't just go cold turkey now. Our alternative energy carriers are nowhere near as advanced and developed as they would have to be to replace oil and coal from one day to the next, which could also be seen as a direct consequence of oil companies both keeping the public uninformed and blocking eco friendly laws.

If it hadn't been both for the convenience, abundance and energy density of petrol and the industry's lobbying, it's not unlikely that the car industry would have spent the last 100 years perfecting electric energy and we would now have cars that could run 600 miles on a single charge, with batteries that could be topped up within minutes, and which would barely take up one corner of your boot.
>> No. 425748 Anonymous
9th April 2019
Tuesday 12:10 am
425748 spacer
>>425745


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://youtu.be/vTlYYlRN0LY[/yt]

The fact that Shell made a video like this speaks volumes. They've known for decades what they were doing, bit of a nail in the coffin for anthropomorphic climate change deniers when the energy companies themselves even admit to it.

This makes me sad in a very deep way.
>> No. 425750 Anonymous
9th April 2019
Tuesday 12:23 am
425750 spacer
I'm fascinated by how often modern-history trends towards the following story:
"We knew about the problem in the 1970s-80s, and there were several good solutions proposed, but they weren't used and now the hack-job solutions we used at the time are both too embedded to displace while also causing us an increasing amount of trouble."
From politics, to economics, to the climate and in several other fields, that same timeframe comes up. The 1960s are consistently too early, the 1990s consistently too late, but in the 1970s-80s everything of significance that ever was and ever will be was seemingly set in stone.

I quite like this piece: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html
While it's probably objectionably narrative for some, the note that oil companies did take the problem seriously for a while and consider alternative approaches for the future before deciding to break for propaganda and the status-quo is fascinating. Perhaps it was simply the path of least resistance once the fears of oil running out post-1973 had subsided into the 1980s oil-glut.
>> No. 425751 Anonymous
9th April 2019
Tuesday 12:26 am
425751 spacer
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042019/arctic-climate-change-temperature-permafrost-sea-ice-wildilfe-ecology-study

Ahh....Shit.
>> No. 425758 Anonymous
9th April 2019
Tuesday 11:33 am
425758 spacer
>>425750

There was still consensus among many scientists in the late 70s that a new ice age was imminent. And by and large, it seemed to make sense, because the 1970s saw a few very drastic winters, and the previous ice ages were known to have begun quite suddenly and within the space of a single human lifetime. More than that, the interglacial warm periods between two ice ages always lasted about 10,000 to 15,000 years, which was yet more reason to believe that we were due another ice age soon.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

Climatologists now actually believe that we may well have altered the Earth's climate trajectory, and that by releasing all the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we have broken the natural cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods.

As the documentary says, even though it wrongly assumes another ice age - the problem is that our global civilisation depends on environmental parameters remaining within a quite narrow band. For life on Earth as such, things like a 70-metre sea level rise or higher temperatures or polarification in some regions of the globe are irrelevant. Biological life on the whole always prevails in some shape or form and has survived far bigger disasters.
>> No. 425913 Anonymous
14th April 2019
Sunday 11:25 pm
425913 spacer
https://youtu.be/_5_ZvHatBVY

This is quite scary, to be honest. It looks like Greta is being manipulated by somebody for some reasons.
>> No. 425914 Anonymous
14th April 2019
Sunday 11:46 pm
425914 spacer
>>425913
It looks like that because it benefits someone for it to look like that.
>> No. 425918 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 11:33 am
425918 spacer
>>425914

Probably a paedo.

She must be a wet dream for wronguns... looks like a ten year old, but is verifiably over the age of consent...
>> No. 425919 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 12:02 pm
425919 spacer
>>425918

... right.
>> No. 425920 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 12:40 pm
425920 spacer
>>425918

I guess.... if you have a thing for 'spergs...
>> No. 425921 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 12:57 pm
425921 spacer
>>425920
Nobody fucks kids for their personality.
>> No. 425922 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 1:46 pm
425922 spacer
>>425918
Paedomorphs. I was with one a couple of years ago, into her mid 20s but my mum saw her picture and was worried I was gonna be done for shagging a 14 year old. Felt weird and uncomfortable walking round with her. She was a grumpy cow to be around and not happy about looking how she does. I wasn't happy feeling like a carpetbagger but it was a brief and intense relationship.
>> No. 425923 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 2:03 pm
425923 spacer
>>425922

One of my female friends at uni was like that. She was 18, almost 19 when we first met, and she honestly looked like a 12-year-old. She was studying to be a primary school teacher, and the first time she went to visit a primary school as a student, some teachers at first glance almost thought she was one of the pupils.

Curiously, her boyfriend, now husband, that she also met around the same time was a mature student and ten years older than her, and he really looked like most 29-year-olds do, more or less. So when the two went out on dates together, occasionally they had people giving them bad or shocked looks in the street.
>> No. 425924 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 2:39 pm
425924 spacer
>>425921

>Nobody fucks kids for their personality

True enough. Most people barely even fuck other adults for that reason.
>> No. 425925 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 3:13 pm
425925 spacer
>>425913
No it doesn't.

Also what the hell are you oddballs talking about now?
>> No. 425932 Anonymous
15th April 2019
Monday 7:15 pm
425932 spacer
>>425925

> Also what the hell are you oddballs talking about now?


Spergs.

Just spergs.
>> No. 425944 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 5:12 pm
425944 spacer

D4XBuucWwAEQ9M_.jpg
425944425944425944
What do you lads make of them goings on what are happening in that London?
>> No. 425945 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 5:21 pm
425945 spacer
>>425944
Not sure how any one could be against the message, really.
>> No. 425946 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 5:23 pm
425946 spacer
>>425945

Their medium, on the other hand, is pretty obviously objectionable.
>> No. 425947 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 5:29 pm
425947 spacer
>>425946
It's difficult to know where to start with the problem with Extinction Rebellion. The only good thing about them, it seems, is their ability to mobilise a huge number of activists in a way previously unseen.
>> No. 425948 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 7:12 pm
425948 spacer
>>425944

Feckin Millennials.

I'm not sure the world will really be in good hands when their generation takes over.
>> No. 425953 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 8:23 pm
425953 spacer
>>425946
What alternative would you suggest?
>> No. 425954 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 8:26 pm
425954 spacer
>>425948
Because it's been so well-managed before?
>> No. 425955 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 8:55 pm
425955 spacer
>>425954

I'm not saying that we as Generation X have been managing it well.

But I doubt that a generation that breaks down in a crying fit whenever the Internet is down or when somebody uses gender insensitive language in a tweet can be trusted to go on to do great things.

We fucked up, in short, otherwise we wouldn't still be having all these environmental debates. But again, I don't see how this generation will do any better once it is settled down in its ways. You don't see many people with a mortgage and a Passat in the driveway taking time off their day job to go and protest, is what I am saying. And today's youngsters will end up no different.
>> No. 425956 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 9:14 pm
425956 spacer
>>425955
If a wholesale upheaval of the binary model of gender which has persisted in most human societies for millennia is not a 'great thing' then I'm not entirely sure would meet your definition.

Also your parents would definitely have spoken about how well they coped without multi-channel television/computer games/cassette tapes/the end of the Cold War etc. etc. so don't give me your hackneyed 'entitled kids' bullshit.
>> No. 425957 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 9:30 pm
425957 spacer
>>425956

>wholesale upheaval of the binary model of gender which has persisted in most human societies for millennia 

Take a minute to think about that again, lad.

>so don't give me your hackneyed 'entitled kids' bullshit.

It's not bullshit. I don't think there has ever been a generation with more entitlement issues than Millennials, which at the same time puts so little effort into actually deserving the things they feel entitled to.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXItLdGwLUY
>> No. 425958 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 9:32 pm
425958 spacer
>>425956
I can't tell whether or not this post is supposed to be a parody.
>> No. 425959 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 9:33 pm
425959 spacer
>>425956
>If a wholesale upheaval of the binary model of gender which has persisted in most human societies for millennia is not a 'great thing' then I'm not entirely sure would meet your definition.

I've read this several times and I still don't know what it's actually saying.
>> No. 425960 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 9:54 pm
425960 spacer
>>425959
It's saying the poster is a mental.
>> No. 425962 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 10:35 pm
425962 spacer
>>425959

That poster is either trolling very well, or completely full of shit. Non binary sexual behaviour has existed and was documented since the dawn of time.
>> No. 425963 Anonymous
17th April 2019
Wednesday 10:39 pm
425963 spacer
>>425962

>or completely full of shit.

Careful lad, kind of sounds like you are outshitting that poster.
>> No. 425964 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 1:03 am
425964 spacer

FTB-earnings.png
425964425964425964
>>425957
>Entitled.
All I want is a house at a price that doesn't fuck me without people calling me entitled for expecting to be able to afford basic shelter without swearing my life away.

Now stop blaming me and either go build some fucking houses or hurry up and die, other people need your house.
>> No. 425965 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 1:07 am
425965 spacer
>>425963

I am just hoping that he is either trolling or impossibly ignorant. People has been out of the binary model of gender from the dawn of time:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/berdache


Now it is being hyped and talked about "ad nauseam", but it was always there.
>> No. 425973 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 2:54 am
425973 spacer
>>425965

I believe a lot of people in the weird gender bubble think there's been some magnificent explosion in gender expression and free love, when in actuality outside of a few bubbles most people are happy enough in the gender binary and maybe there's a few more of the gays open about their life these days.

I mean good for you if you want to identify as something other than male but it's not really important is it.
>> No. 425979 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 7:56 am
425979 spacer
>>425964
Move to a part of the country that isn't London. Problem solved.
>> No. 425984 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 9:16 am
425984 spacer
>>425973

>when in actuality outside of a few bubbles most people are happy enough in the gender binary

This. Breaking up the "gender binary" is really only an issue for a small minority of the population, when the majority really couldn't give a toss. But gender studies and certain strands of fishing will have you believe that the exact opposite is true.
>> No. 425985 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 9:20 am
425985 spacer
>>425964

Well that should have bern a consideration at the end of the last housing bubble circa 2008-09. House prices don't always just rise, they oscillate in an upward long-term trend. And the next time the property market goes tits up, there will be another opportunity to buy an affordable house.
>> No. 426002 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 7:57 pm
426002 spacer
Various London XR encampments seem to be thriving as of about an hour ago. Internet grumps who like to whine about being potentially mildly inconvenienced don't seem to have had much of an impact. Protesters from quite a wide range of backgrounds though more people who can take time off easily than not because obviously that's going to happen with any sort of week day protest. I'll head back down tomorrow evening, stay over night perhaps.
>> No. 426003 Anonymous
18th April 2019
Thursday 8:03 pm
426003 spacer

Supply-and-demand-Equilibrium.jpg
426003426003426003
>>425985
>And the next time the property market goes tits up, there will be another opportunity to buy an affordable house.
It's almost as if you don't understand the reason why the market went tits up.
>> No. 426018 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 10:36 am
426018 spacer

>> No. 426019 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 10:41 am
426019 spacer
I just don't understand how people can observe and be aware of how our governing classes function and yet still genuinely believe they can cause them to change their ways by doing anything like this. It's already too late and nothing peaceful or of this relatively tiny magnitude will do anything to change the people in power who make too much money and are too old to care about the trajectory of our ecosystem.
>> No. 426020 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 10:50 am
426020 spacer
>>426019
“We are running out of time but there is still hope…” - Sir David Attenborough. Do you think he understands or nah?
>> No. 426021 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 11:25 am
426021 spacer
>>426020
Everyone campaigning to end climate change, by definition, either believes the planet can be saved or publicly claims the planet can be saved for other political means. And I don't mean to make the latter sound conspiracist - for instance if Attenborough genuinely thinks we are past the point of no return, maybe he just doesn't say so because he doesn't want society to panic and break down.
>> No. 426023 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 11:35 am
426023 spacer
>>426021
>Everyone campaigning to end climate change, by definition, either believes the planet can be saved or publicly claims the planet can be saved for other political means.
Neither of those sweeping generalisations apply to me, so you're wrong. No doubt there are other exceptions.
If Attenborough didn't want people to panic then maybe he wouldn't be so heavily involved in creating programs about climate change. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
>> No. 426024 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 11:58 am
426024 spacer

12451584-6938095-Dame_Emma_Thompson_was_at_the_Ext.jpg
426024426024426024
The problem with Extinction Rebellion is that they're not extreme enough. What they need to do is behave like absolute dickheads, preferably in London because that's far away from my house, so that once they've brought sufficient attention to the issue another group with actual broad appeal can then start to constructively address the issue with the powers that be.

Instead we've got flaccid cocks like Robin Boardman-Pattison or luvvies like Emma Thompson flying thousands of miles to join the demonstration, which consists of middle class people knitting, doing yoga and crying because they didn't disrupt any flights from Heathrow or because Jeremy Corbyn didn't want to eat any of the chocolates they brought for him. It's preaching to the choir. Too middle class. Too cosy. Too hypocritical. Too easily dismissed. If they don't arrange something for the next bank holiday weekend entitled "The Great Climate Cunt-Off" then it's clear they won't amount to much other than ego stroking.
>> No. 426025 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 12:14 pm
426025 spacer
>>426024
>Luvvies
Oh, hello, Noel Coward.
>> No. 426026 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 12:16 pm
426026 spacer
>>426021

The planet is fine, it's us that are in trouble. We (almost certainly) won't become extinct, but things will get decidedly unpleasant for us over the next century. polars will expand, storms will become more deadly, floods will become chronic and eventually low-lying areas will be consumed by the sea.

We have already irreparably altered the climate, but we can still limit the damage. If average ocean temperatures rise by one degree, the Norfolk Broads disappear under the waves. After two degrees, we lose most of the south coast. After four degrees, you'll be able to take a ferry from Cambridge to York. It's too late to save the Broads, but we can avoid the rest if we act swiftly.
>> No. 426027 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 12:22 pm
426027 spacer
>>426025
If someone is prepared to take a c. 5,400 mile flight from Los Angeles to London to join a demonstration on climate change, whilst showing sufficient lack of awareness that they can't even get the Extinction Rebellion egg timer logo the right way round on their dungarees, then it's safe to say they're rather pretentious and superficial.
>> No. 426030 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 12:33 pm
426030 spacer
>>426020

I too believe there is still time, but I don't believe we can actually convince or change our politics or corporate culture in time, and certainly not by camping on a bridge.

Every time I say this I'm accused of either denying climate change or just not caring, and it's very tiring. I care a lot, and it frustrates me that everything we're doing as a society is basically not helping. Buying a bamboo toothbrush or camping on a bridge is an infintessimally small drop in the ocean, but I genuinely don't believe we can actually change the course of world industry and leaders at this point. They demonstrably are fine with whats happening, and it'll take billions of coordinated people to change that - and that's not going to come from XR.
>> No. 426031 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 12:46 pm
426031 spacer
>>426027

People travelling from all over to come to a protest that they're not really invested in...sounds exactly like Dale Farm. That one was chock full of rentamob protesters who didn't give a shit about the cause, they were only up for a ruck.
>> No. 426032 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 12:51 pm
426032 spacer
>>426030

It's certainly not going to come from naysayers sitting around handwringing and coming up with reasons to do nothing at all on the Internet.
>> No. 426033 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 12:55 pm
426033 spacer
>>426032

This is the frustrating part. I'm saying outright I don't believe anything other than a coordination of billions would do anything, and you're still convincing yourself that a few thousand people out there are actually doing anything. The difference between what I'm doing right now and what XR are doing right now is absolutely negligible. Keep doing it if you want, I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I believe fully it is not helping at all.
>> No. 426034 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 1:03 pm
426034 spacer
XR really highlights that really only middle class people have the time and capability of worrying about climate change. Working class people might be fully aware of the damage being caused but they also have to work to live and can't particularly pay the premium for sustainable food and products, let alone afford time off work to protest. Even if those working class folk are aware of the problem and distressed by it, they are likely stuck working for one of the big polluters anyway, and unless we completely remake society to remove that issue then we will never have enough people on board to bring this damage to a stop. How do we do that? No fucking clue, I'm not sure we can. Vote Green Party.
>> No. 426035 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:03 pm
426035 spacer
Whatever happened to carbon taxes? Did the trading schemes just turn it into a nothing?
Asking people to use less energy while it's cheap and their neigbours still do - seems like asking a lot of the average citizen.
(That said, I've just taken the govenment's shilling to get an electric car, so maybe I'm more bribeable than most?)
>> No. 426036 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:04 pm
426036 spacer
>>426034

>really only middle class people have the time and capability of worrying about climate change.

Unfortunately, this is very true. And I wouldn't say that being aware of climate change and wanting to protest against it are an intellectual feat, which they are by no means, but it appears you have to have a certain level of education to want to take part in an anti-climate change movement.

Some countries are now debating the introduction of a carbon footprint tax, which would impose an additional tax on everything from petrol to an airplane flight or even consumer goods, but also groceries, based on the amount of CO2 production that they cause. This is all not a problem for middle class people who have a decent income and have choices in what they consume, but if you are poor and depend on cheap food from Lidl or Iceland, then that CO2 tax will take away much more of your income in relative terms than it will from people who are better off.
>> No. 426038 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:19 pm
426038 spacer
>>426036

I don't even think it's about the education, it's more about being financially and socially mobile enough to have a voice at all. All the 'bastards complaining about not being able to get to work on time' because of these protests are often just people who simply can't afford to get their pay docked for being late. I was well aware of climate change when I was in a minimum wage job, I just didn't have much opportunity to think about it or certainly do anything about it.

Telling these people they should be cycling to work or getting a bus is fine until you realise that might not be cost effective or time effective for them. A single mother can't afford the fancy dutch cargo bike that middle class people want everyone to take their kids to school in, nor do they always work jobs easily or economically accessible by greener public transport. Poor people need cheap petrol and mass produced food right now, that's unavoidable.

Besides all that, looking to individuals to make changes is, in my view, and I'm sure in actual fact, the wrong end of the wedge. I can start bringing my own paper bags to the shops but until factories stop pumping out billions of litres of pollution per second that's hardly going to do much.
>> No. 426039 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:41 pm
426039 spacer
They say the rainforest is decreasing, right? Wouldn't climate change rejuvinate it?
>> No. 426040 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:43 pm
426040 spacer

all this time ive been smoking harmless tobacco.jpg
426040426040426040
>The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.
>The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.
>A national Citizens' assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.

I agree with Gove on this, Britain does care and we've done tremendous work in cleaning our act up. If anything we might be too cavalier in how we intend to be squeaky clean while engaging in post-Brexit international trade and decided the national grid doesn't need surplus capacity.

There's more to be done but if we're talking net zero in 6 years then really you're in space sunshade territory or even beyond. Go home.

>>426002
Do let us know in advance if any of your friends will be fucking with the underground tomorrow afternoon. I'm not snitching, I just have plans and would like to enjoy my Easter weekend.

You can be our man on the inside.

>>426034
If the working class is so shit then how can they afford to put on yellow vests and racially abuse civil servants all day?
>> No. 426041 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:46 pm
426041 spacer
>>426039
Not if the Brazilians keep chopping it down to farm cattle, no.
>> No. 426042 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:53 pm
426042 spacer
>>426038

>Besides all that, looking to individuals to make changes is, in my view, and I'm sure in actual fact, the wrong end of the wedge. I can start bringing my own paper bags to the shops but until factories stop pumping out billions of litres of pollution per second that's hardly going to do much.


Also, there is a lot of hypocrisy on behalf of the educated middle class who pretend to be all for saving the planet, but what I have personally witnessed numerous times was people pulling into a Lidl car park in their SUV and carrying a Bag For Life. No amount of Bags For Life anybody will ever own and use can make up for the fact that you choose to go grocery shopping in an SUV, and to a place that sells unsustainably produced, high carbon footprint groceries.

The newest culmination, although not entirely without good reason, is the new Swedish invention of flight shaming. In short, people who can be seen via their social media accounts undertaking frequent flights to far away locations are being criticised by online mobs for creating a large carbon footprint that way. I believe I've read that in some countries, a few local Green Party members have had to close down their social media accounts because of this. Talk about do as I say, don't do as I do.

And while it is true that modern aircraft have better fuel economy per person than a car if you convert the kerosene that is burned by that airplane into miles per gallon per person, naturally if you travel 20,000 miles to Australia and back just once, you will still have consumed more fuel than your car back home will use during two years of normal operation.
>> No. 426043 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 2:56 pm
426043 spacer
>>426039
Trees are natures dole-scum. There's a plan but it involves us having to cluster-bomb large sections of land with seeds so they can suck up all the carbon but which will cause it's own problems if having thorny bastards everywhere:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/invasive-mesquite-spreads-across-east-north-south-africa/
>> No. 426044 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 3:07 pm
426044 spacer
>>426040

>net zero by 2025

Net zero in 6 years? I'm in favour of green polices but that feels pie in the sky.
>> No. 426045 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 3:07 pm
426045 spacer
>>426040

>net zero by 2025

Net zero in 6 years? I'm in favour of green polices but that feels pie in the sky.
>> No. 426046 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 3:24 pm
426046 spacer
>>426044

>Net zero in 6 years? I'm in favour of green polices but that feels pie in the sky.

It's bullshit any way you look at it.

Just like that Vision Zero goal by the European Commission with which they seek to reduce traffic accident fatalities EU wide to zero, albeit by the year 2050 I think, and which mean that among other things, new cars from 2022 will have to have automatic speed limiters installed that effectively prevent you from breaking a posted speed limit by automatically reducing your engine power so you can not go significantly faster, unless it's for a few seconds at a time that you are overtaking somebody.

It would be nice to think that these kinds of lofty goals dreamt up by some out of touch politicians would be realistically attainable. But they aren't. And instead, we are all being made to feel bad for not meeting those goals, when in reality they were rather quite daftly formulated to begin with and are in their own way the modern equivalent to saying Let them eat cake.
>> No. 426047 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 4:05 pm
426047 spacer

12473392-6939681-image-m-17_1555673610190.jpg
426047426047426047
The Mail have published an article highlighting the discarded rubbish and number of single use plastics and disposable coffee cups used by the crusties.

>>426042
>The newest culmination, although not entirely without good reason, is the new Swedish invention of flight shaming. In short, people who can be seen via their social media accounts undertaking frequent flights to far away locations are being criticised by online mobs for creating a large carbon footprint that way. I believe I've read that in some countries, a few local Green Party members have had to close down their social media accounts because of this. Talk about do as I say, don't do as I do.

The person I know most vocal about climate change has been on yoga holidays to North America, Africa and Asia in recent years.
>> No. 426048 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 4:27 pm
426048 spacer
>>426047

>The person I know most vocal about climate change has been on yoga holidays to North America, Africa and Asia in recent years.

And let me guess, that person gets in a huff about you driving to work every day in your own car, and won't shut up about how you are killing the planet by using plastic bags.
>> No. 426051 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 6:08 pm
426051 spacer

this again.png
426051426051426051
>>426047
>The Mail have published an article highlighting the discarded rubbish and number of single use plastics and disposable coffee cups used by the crusties.
>> No. 426054 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:10 pm
426054 spacer
>>426051

The fact is though there are absolutely alternatives to those things. You can absolutely 100% participate in society right not without ever using a plastic bag or coffee cup, especially in London. Even I bring my own cup to Costa and I'm a fucking northerner.

It's just further evidence XR is one big self righteous party.
>> No. 426055 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:11 pm
426055 spacer
>>426045
The fact it feels pie in the sky (and I do share that feeling) is probably the reason we're going to boil the oceans away.
The quote that sticks with me is "We now find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism", because it gets pretty close to the issue. I'm not saying the solution is socialism. I don't think we're going to find a solution, but the quote quickly captures our inability to seriously imagine an alternative.
>> No. 426056 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:13 pm
426056 spacer
>>426047

The person I know most vocal about it (and constantly posting stuff from the scenes of crusties) is a professional cyclist that flies all over the world to race bikes. When she's not posting about sustainable socks she's posting pictures of her substantial air miles. I don't understand.
>> No. 426058 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:23 pm
426058 spacer
>>426054
I'm tired of this sort of petty grasping for apparent hypocrisy. I mean if they had a XR private jet then sure, that's just taking the piss. "You used the wrong bags!" is just wank though. Who cares? Did the man use the cup? God forbid.
>> No. 426059 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:32 pm
426059 spacer
>>426058

>Who cares?

Typically, the people who care about climate change do. Aren't they supposed to be wanting people to stop using one-use items derived from petrochemicals?
>> No. 426060 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:40 pm
426060 spacer
>>426047

Anyone who criticises air travel usually misses the critical detail that for miles travelled and the number of people serviced it is profoundly efficient in terms of carbon footprint. More so that say a local bus (only really a train or a fully laden coach have comparable ) It is just the sheer distance and neither are really a practical replacement. You might be able to catch the euro star a few hundred miles. But try traveling to say China on the train (which you could) and you'll noticed the not to subtle difference between them.
>> No. 426061 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:40 pm
426061 spacer
>>426047

Anyone who criticises air travel usually misses the critical detail that for miles travelled and the number of people serviced it is profoundly efficient in terms of carbon footprint. More so that say a local bus (only really a train or a fully laden coach have comparable ) It is just the sheer distance and neither are really a practical replacement. You might be able to catch the euro star a few hundred miles. But try traveling to say China on the train (which you could) and you'll noticed the not to subtle difference between them.
>> No. 426062 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 7:49 pm
426062 spacer
>>426059
One would hope the people who care about climate change would be smart enough to think on the systems level rather than appointing themselves the cup mutaween.
>> No. 426063 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 8:09 pm
426063 spacer
>>426062

And yet they reckon camping out on a bank holiday will save the environment.
>> No. 426064 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 8:10 pm
426064 spacer
>>426048
She actually travels a lot by car. She's very big on chastising others for materialism, such as buying an expensive watch, so will make a big point about things like how she was shopping for a car and then decided to get one for half the price she was originally looking for because spending big isn't everything... before splurging on a pair of Louboutin shoes.

When she's not talking about bollocks such as this she's sharing her wisdom on parenting and boasting about how advanced her children are for their age. She has never taken the children with her on a single yoga holiday.
>> No. 426067 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 9:07 pm
426067 spacer
>>426061

>for miles travelled and the number of people serviced it is profoundly efficient in terms of carbon footprint

No it isn't. Per passenger-kilometre, it generates significantly more CO2 emissions than any other mode of transport aside from a single driver in a supercar.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

It gets worse, because emissions at high altitude have a greater warming impact than emissions at sea level and CO2 isn't the only emission from aviation with a warming effect on the climate. We still don't fully understand the science, but there is a broad consensus that emissions from aviation cause 2-3 times more warming than an equivalent amount of CO2 emitted at sea level.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-challenge-tackling-aviations-non-co2-emissions
>> No. 426068 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 9:36 pm
426068 spacer
>>426067
Not arguing against the point, but is there anything that breaks down aircraft in more detail? The assumption of 88 passengers average per plane seems remarkably low. I'd doubt if that's even break even loadfactor for many airlines. Presumably the figure is being dragged right down by short flights.
>> No. 426070 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 9:50 pm
426070 spacer
>>426068

>>426068

>Presumably the figure is being dragged right down by short flights

That'd be my assumption too. There are a lot of domestic short hauls with small planes that will bring that down. Even just looking at my local airport for the last couple of hours, there's been three or four 70-odd seat Dash 8 for every 150-300 pax jet, and the former are rarely fully loaded mid-week.

I reckon yank city hoppers like Austin to Dallas are underpopulated and flown frequently, too.
>> No. 426071 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 11:30 pm
426071 spacer
>>426064
I guess if you don't like one of your coworkers we should just acidify the oceans and abandon green energy wholesale then, it's the only possibly conclusion to you having an annoying workmate who may or may not exist.
>> No. 426072 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 11:34 pm
426072 spacer
>>426061
I get the feeling that a lot of the professional whiners who complained about Emma Thompson flying to London might have missed a crucial detail about the commercial flight she took to get there. With or without her, that plane was going to fly anyway. The inefficiencies in flying are related to large shipments of fresh air being flown across a continent.

People are right to notice that action on the individual level is a marginal gain at best, but go ask Sir David Brailsford what he thinks of marginal gains.
>> No. 426073 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 11:48 pm
426073 spacer
>>426068

The average scheduled long-haul flight does about 114g/CO2e per passenger kilometre. An economy-only charter aircraft with near-100% occupancy can manage 68g/pkm. After applying a conservative 1.9x multiplier to account for altitude effects, the climate impact per mile is roughly equivalent to a single occupant in a large SUV. In the best case scenario, aviation is still pretty bad.

There's also the obvious fact that the speed of jet aviation allows people to rack up massive mileages without really noticing it. The sustainable limit is about 2,000kg/CO2e per person per year, which would be gobbled up by a transatlantic return flight. Driving 7,000 miles in a big car over the course of a year feels like a lot of travel, but a long weekend in New York sort of doesn't. It's really hard to see how jet aviation can possibly fit into a sustainable transport mix.

http://lipasto.vtt.fi/yksikkopaastot/henkiloliikennee/ilmaliikennee/ilmae.htm
>> No. 426074 Anonymous
19th April 2019
Friday 11:58 pm
426074 spacer
>>426060

>Anyone who criticises air travel usually misses the critical detail that for miles travelled and the number of people serviced it is profoundly efficient in terms of carbon footprint.

The point that you are missing though is that it's not a question about airplanes using less fuel per distance per person than your car, which they undoubtedly do, but that you choose to go to those far away destinations in the first place instead of spending your holiday somewhere closer. Even if you drive your car to the south of Spain, with two occupants and luggage, in total, you will have burned less fuel than you would on your round trip to Australia. Say you go to Gibraltar by car. Google Maps says that's about 1,475 miles from London. Let's assume your car gets 25 miles to the gallon, that means 118 gallons of fuel will be needed for the round trip.

If you take a plane to Australia and back, that's roughly 20,000 miles, and a Boeing 747 is said to get around 100 miles per gallon per person. That's 200 gallons of fuel burned on your round trip, per person. But if there are two people going to Gibraltar in your car, you will have consumed only 59 gallons per person. So your trip to Australia has used nearly three and a half times as much fuel as driving your car to Gibraltar and back.

So even if you argue that passenger airplanes are more fuel efficient than cars (you could also rightly say that flying to Gibraltar would use even less fuel per person), the problem is that too many people go on long-distance flights too often, mainly because commercial air travel has simply become too cheap. And part of the problem are all the no-frills airlines of the last 20 years. It may be all good fun to go on a stag do to Latvia for 100 quid round trip, but it just isn't an environmentally friendly business model, because it means air traffic as a whole has become too much. I remember we once flew to Alicante some 25 years ago, and the price per person round-trip for the tickets was around £300. As I said, 25 years ago. In today's money, that would probably be around £500. And people accepted that air travel was expensive, and that it meant that you could only afford it about once a year, and usually not much further afield than Alicante. A friend of my dad's used to fly to Los Angeles for business occasionally around the same time, and he always said something that it cost his employer £600 to £700 each time with British Airways.
>> No. 426076 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 8:10 am
426076 spacer
>>426072

Supply and demand m8. It's like buying a coat made out of panda fur and arguing "someone was going to make the coat anyway, so I might as well buy it". Passenger aviation is exceptionally sensitive to demand because of the very tight profit margins on most routes - a single-digit change in passenger numbers can be the difference between profit and loss on a scheduled flight.
>> No. 426077 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 11:16 am
426077 spacer
>>426076

Yes, but much like a hypothetical panda fur coat, commercial aviation can be unethical when it creates a strain on the environment. Our parents certainly didn't go on a £99 stag do to Latvia, and they probably didn't feel like they were missing out. And just because giant SUVs with piss poor gas mileage exist, does not make it ok for you to buy one.
>> No. 426078 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 2:50 pm
426078 spacer
Our obsession with moralising over individual consumption choices rather than realising what you really need to do is either take the choice out of people's hands entirely or radically alter the nature of the choice by jacking up the cost of making it is precisely why we deserve our hopefully impending extinction.
>> No. 426080 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 3:17 pm
426080 spacer
>>426074

Bear in mind that many (most) large commercial flights will also be shipping a fair amount of cargo along with passenger baggage - a lot of wide body passenger aircraft will also be shipping parcels, goods, livestock or even cars, so that will presumably have to be factored in to these calculations - it might be expensive per passenger, but perhaps if you calculated it by tonne of shipped goods as well it'd seem a bit better.

Your smaller 737 etc won't do any of that, maybe small amounts of express goods, but it's mostly just got room for the bags.
>> No. 426081 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 3:52 pm
426081 spacer
Air travel is just too cheap.

I don't like flying so I always look for train/bus alternatives, but my flight to Spain in August cost me £31 and taking a chain of trains would have been closer to £200.

Surely that £31 has to at least cover the extra fuel and taxes the airline would not have to pay if I was not in the plane... and if that is really only £31 pounds worth then the plane must be very fuel efficient.
>> No. 426082 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 4:07 pm
426082 spacer
>>426081

Aviation fuel is really cheap, because international law requires it to be tax-exempt.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf
>> No. 426087 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 5:31 pm
426087 spacer
Replying to OP

Middle class eco loons can't brainwash rational people with their cultish diatribe so instead get children to do their bidding.
>> No. 426090 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 7:33 pm
426090 spacer
>>426087
If you want to reply to someone press the little number on their post, 1800 hundredslad. Did you pop a stamp on your monitor before posting that too?
>> No. 426091 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 10:34 pm
426091 spacer
>>426090

>If you want to reply to someone

Otherlad....
>> No. 426092 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 10:55 pm
426092 spacer
Doing XR stuff is has been pretty rewarding. Members of the public are almost all supportive, the only exceptions are the proper lads coming by drunk after dark looking for an argument.
I don't know how much will be left by the morning but I didn't expect it to last this long.
>> No. 426093 Anonymous
20th April 2019
Saturday 11:17 pm
426093 spacer
>>426087

>so instead get children to do their bidding.

Even if it's a child-faced 16-year-old sperg, it seems.

Fuckssake, I have seen 16-year-olds who looked twice as old as her. Must be the cold Swedish winters and tepid summers.
>> No. 426102 Anonymous
21st April 2019
Sunday 9:22 pm
426102 spacer
she's a bit of an ugly 16yo but i want to fuck her

why.jpg

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 426105 Anonymous
21st April 2019
Sunday 9:39 pm
426105 spacer
I'd change her climate IYKWIM
>> No. 426106 Anonymous
21st April 2019
Sunday 10:21 pm
426106 spacer
>>425684
If a girl with a face like that is perfectly legal then we need to look at raising the age of consent.
>> No. 426109 Anonymous
21st April 2019
Sunday 10:25 pm
426109 spacer
>>426106

I think we should start letting coppers eyeball it, like they do with public order offences and dangerous driving. If the copper reckons you're a paedo you should get done for it, regardless of her actual age.

Saying that a bus driver asked my missus for her under16 bus pass the other day. She's 30.
>> No. 426110 Anonymous
21st April 2019
Sunday 11:30 pm
426110 spacer
This thread's like pure carpet-bagger and /pol/fag astroturf, I swear.
>> No. 426112 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 12:11 am
426112 spacer
>>426109

You can already commit the offence of creating child pornography if your 18-year-old girlfriend looks substantially younger than her real age in the nude pictures you take of her.
>> No. 426113 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 5:37 am
426113 spacer
>>426112

you can marry and start a family with a 16yo, but take a photo of with her tits out and you'll be put on the sex offender register for making CP
>> No. 426114 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 8:30 am
426114 spacer
>>426113

That did always seem odd to me, I remember when you could at least see 16 year olds topless in magazines and that. If my mum's kept my Max Power magazines from that time then she's definitely hoarding cp in her attic.

I suppose there's an argument to be made about predatory porn companies and that. I'd probably have got my knob out for money at 16, though by 18 I might have thought twice.
>> No. 426116 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 11:54 am
426116 spacer
>>426113
I thought there was an exception for consensual images for personal use. As in, don't stick your girlfriend's nudes on Facebook for everyone to see. Mainly because it would be utterly bonkers, even by our government's standards, to say that a pair of 17yo lovers can't take intimate pictures of each other.
>> No. 426117 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 12:01 pm
426117 spacer
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/21/extinction-rebellion-london-protesters-offer-pause-climate-action
Greta talking to crowds in Marble Arch last night. You perv lads seem to have missed your opportunity.
>> No. 426118 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 12:30 pm
426118 spacer
>>426117


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
>> No. 426120 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 1:22 pm
426120 spacer
>>426117

I'd change her climate IYKWIM.
>> No. 426122 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 1:57 pm
426122 spacer

2638.jpg
426122426122426122
>>426117
>> No. 426123 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 1:57 pm
426123 spacer

2638.jpg
426123426123426123
>>426120

> I'd change her climate IYKWIM.

That's enough out of you, paedolad.
>> No. 426124 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 1:58 pm
426124 spacer
Greta Thunberg = GREAT FUNBIRD
>> No. 426126 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 2:01 pm
426126 spacer
I want to email her and ask her what's her favourite position for solar panels
>> No. 426127 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 2:16 pm
426127 spacer

49465652_293331804661658_4734533175851337582_n.jpg
426127426127426127

>> No. 426128 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 2:24 pm
426128 spacer
>>426127

do all assburger girls look this young?

just asking.
>> No. 426129 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 2:25 pm
426129 spacer
>>426128
Nice 4chan-level post m9.
>> No. 426130 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 2:31 pm
426130 spacer
>>426123
Don't confuse enjoying some harmless IYKWIM action with the IYKWIM meaning, IYKWIM.
>> No. 426131 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 2:53 pm
426131 spacer
>>426129

As long as ge's not going to post Spurdo memes, he should be fine.
>> No. 426132 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 3:06 pm
426132 spacer
>>426128

>just asking.

Asking for a friend, you mean?
>> No. 426134 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 3:51 pm
426134 spacer
I used to work with a girl I suspect had aspergers (she was weird socially, had obsessions, and had an autistic brother).

While she could be very sweet in a childish sort of way, she didn't look any younger than you would expect.
>> No. 426135 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 4:02 pm
426135 spacer
>>426134
Damn.

IYKWIM.
>> No. 426136 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 4:17 pm
426136 spacer
>>426116

Kind of. Section 1A Protection of Children Act. It's very narrowly drawn, though.
>> No. 426138 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 4:28 pm
426138 spacer
>>426136

If you think I'm putting Protection of Children act into google then you're sorely mistaken. There have been more vans on my street already since I started watching Steve1989MREInfo.
>> No. 426139 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 4:31 pm
426139 spacer
>>426138
Put it into legislation.gov.uk or BAILII instead and they'll think you're a shot solicitor rather than a paedo.
>> No. 426142 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 4:36 pm
426142 spacer
>>426138

>If you think I'm putting Protection of Children act into google

Why would that be a bad thing to do? As a citizen, you have a right to inform yourself about the law. Just the same way you are free to google any kind of countermilitant daft woggery legislation without having to fear men in black suits and shades showing up on your doorstep.
>> No. 426145 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 6:35 pm
426145 spacer
>>426142
You're not fooling anyone, paedolad.
>> No. 426146 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 6:48 pm
426146 spacer
>>426142
From what I've read, MI5 don't turn up on your doorstep in black suits, they turn up dressed like a postman.
>> No. 426149 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 8:02 pm
426149 spacer
>>426145

Oh, and I'm not daft militant woglad because I look up antidaft militant wog legislation online?
>> No. 426151 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 11:07 pm
426151 spacer
>>426146

>they turn up dressed like a postman.

There is indeed something off about our postman here.
>> No. 426152 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 11:19 pm
426152 spacer
I spoke to the bloke in the white rabbit suit today (you can see him in the Pie video and a fair few newspapers). Really lovely guy, says he does it (standing around in a rabbit suit with placards encouraging people to be nice to one another) full time, just joined XR as he thought it was a good cause. Practising some sort of brand of radical altruism.

Marble Arch in the evening is full of music and dancing and lectures on climate science until 11pm. Four or five bands playing in different areas at any one time. The elderly dancing even. Kids running around playing, drawing stuff on the street with chalk. Adults doing that too. Free hot food, water, hot drinks, any litter dropped by tourists gets snapped up straight away.

More good stuff than I can do justice by only describing it. All the camps; Oxford Circus, Parliament Square, Waterloo Bridge and Marble Arch feel so different when they're traffic free. My brain doesn't want to accept that how they are when held by the protesters and how they are normally are the same physical locations.
>> No. 426153 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 11:30 pm
426153 spacer
>>426152
Nothing good ever happens in that London.
>> No. 426154 Anonymous
22nd April 2019
Monday 11:58 pm
426154 spacer
>>426153
I have noticed that my snot has been black since I've been out there on a daily basis.
>> No. 426155 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 1:57 am
426155 spacer
>>426154

Buy one of those anti-PM10 masks. The level of particulate in London is off the scale, it will shred your lungs in a few years.
>> No. 426156 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 9:10 am
426156 spacer
>>426155
They're not one size fits all, I'm guessing a cycle shop is the place to go to try some on?
>> No. 426157 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 10:20 am
426157 spacer
>>426156

Don't know, I bought mine on Amazon and it was one size fit all. I just had to cut it to size.
>> No. 426158 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 5:07 pm
426158 spacer
One of my coworkers told me today that she was in the crowd at Marble Arch when Greta was holding her speech.

My coworker being the kind of full of herself person that some guilty white middle class armchair environmentalists tend to be, listening to her going on about what a "brave young girl" Greta Thunberg is was really kind of painful.

You know, people who aren't content with the fact that they themselves have stopped using plastic bags and disposable plastic tableware and cups, but who will look at you like you are a failed human being when you come back from lunch with a plastic coffee cup.
>> No. 426159 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 5:20 pm
426159 spacer

c0t5HuM-_400x400.jpg
426159426159426159
I've been thinking about it, really thinking about it. I don't care if she's of age, I couldn't shag her. She looks too young and I'd feel like a proper dirty paedo.

Britfa making me contemplate the big issues, as ever.
>> No. 426161 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 5:22 pm
426161 spacer

mongol pro.png
426161426161426161
>>426159
She looks like a Finngol.
>> No. 426162 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 6:08 pm
426162 spacer
>>426159

Then again, if she maintains a healthy lifestyle, it will pay off for her from about her late 20s, when she will probably still be looking not a day older than 20.

How the sperg thing will play out for her in adulthood is a different consideration.
>> No. 426163 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 6:20 pm
426163 spacer
>>426162
I'm not prepared to feel like a sex offender by banging someone who looks like a child for the best part of 12 years on the off chance that eventually she'll look nubile.
>> No. 426164 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 7:10 pm
426164 spacer
>>426163

At 16, that's a reasonable point. But once she's in her early 20s, and looks 16-18ish, why not.
>> No. 426165 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 7:33 pm
426165 spacer
>>426164
If she's 16 now and looks 12 and it'll take her 12 years to look 20 then that's aging visually by 1 year for every 1½ actual year. If you're shagging a 16 year old as a fully grown adult then you're a wrong 'un so you ideally want her looking at least 18. For her to visually age by 6 years then that will take 9 actual years. I couldn't feel like a filthy child fucker for 9 years in the hope of an eventual payoff.
>> No. 426166 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 9:34 pm
426166 spacer

3500.jpg
426166426166426166
I miss the days when Ed Miliband was leader.
>> No. 426167 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 9:43 pm
426167 spacer
Who the fuck is greta thunberg
>> No. 426168 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 9:45 pm
426168 spacer
>>426167
Assburger carpet-bagger-snarer who's convinced a bunch of schoolkids that their bunking off has changed the world's mind about climate change.
>> No. 426169 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 9:49 pm
426169 spacer
>>426165

You are forgetting though that despite her juvenile looks in her early 20s, she will for all intents and purposes be a full adult.

Also, it happens occasionally that teenagers are late bloomers physically and then put in a somewhat sudden growth spurt in their mid to late teens. So what she will look like in her early 20s is anybody's guess really. Also, maturation and then aging isn't a linear process. They don't happen at a constant rate in your life.
>> No. 426170 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 10:13 pm
426170 spacer
Because of COURSE a thread about the anti-climate change movement would degenerate into whether .gs would fuck a 16 year old.

Never change.
>> No. 426171 Anonymous
23rd April 2019
Tuesday 10:49 pm
426171 spacer
If you'd sleep with Greta and you're old enough to post here, you're a paedo and I'll beat you with a large stick if you disagree.
>> No. 426172 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 3:24 am
426172 spacer
Climate Change impending apocalypse stuff aside, when the next round of protests happen you depressedlads should really attend. Just ask open questions of the veteran protesters and listen to what they have to say, they're so overwhelmingly positive people it's a healing experience to be around them.
>> No. 426173 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 3:51 am
426173 spacer
>>426172

Fucking hippie
>> No. 426174 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 5:21 am
426174 spacer
>>426172
How many underage overage girls are there?
>> No. 426176 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 10:30 am
426176 spacer
>>426171

>If you'd sleep with Greta and you're old enough to post here

What if you're 18 and therefore only two years older than her?

But yeah, if you are in any way past your late teens or very early 20s, you're a wrongun if you want to shag her.
>> No. 426178 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 10:53 am
426178 spacer
>>425688
I couldn't agree more we are heading an environmental disaster.
It annoys me the environmental movement won't come clean, by that I mean the only realistic way of dramatically reducing emissions is by prohibiting a lot of things the average person in the UK would see as a reduction in quality of life. How do you sell to the average person no flights to go on holiday, no/little personal transport, reduced access to fresh produce etc.
>> No. 426179 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 11:44 am
426179 spacer
>>426176
Even then, I'm not making exceptions on this. She looks like a wee'un and that's that.
>> No. 426181 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 12:08 pm
426181 spacer
>>426178
>How do you sell to the average person no flights to go on holiday, no/little personal transport, reduced access to fresh produce etc.
By helping them realise that not doing it now means not doing it later and everyone being dead as a result.
>> No. 426186 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 1:34 pm
426186 spacer
>>426178

> How do you sell to the average person no flights to go on holiday

It doesn't have to be no flights, ever. But when you look back at how people spent their holidays twenty years ago, it was kind of unheard of that you would go to the Caribbean for an Easter holiday and then again to the Canary Islands in summer and to New Zealand in winter, all in the same year. People usually went on one flight per year. If that.
>> No. 426188 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 1:41 pm
426188 spacer
>>426186
>People usually went on one flight per year.
Just gonna pre-empt the pedantry by saying obviously this poster means one flight there and one back.
>> No. 426192 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 1:42 pm
426192 spacer
>>426181

And how do you do that without causing mass denial as in general people enjoy the things that are harmful
On top of that how do we cope with the huge unemployment caused by the contraction of the auto, airline and other businesses.
I agree with You, I agree with science. My point is what is the environmental movement proposing to prevent this because until they can the present situation is unlikely to change. Denial and economic forces can't just be hand waved away
>> No. 426195 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 2:09 pm
426195 spacer
>>426192

I don't know, I don't speak for the entire environmental movement and am not omniscient. But the strides XR have made in the past week can't be dismissed either. Politicians on all sides are starting to take heed. Corbyn, William Hague, Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband, members of the Shadow Cabinet. Various showboating celebrities (pun intended) throwing their hats into the ring too. The conversation is shifting.
>> No. 426197 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 2:18 pm
426197 spacer
>>426192

>On top of that how do we cope with the huge unemployment caused by the contraction of the auto, airline and other businesses.


In the long run, people always find other employment.

What's going to be a bigger problem is people in certain third-world shitehole countries whose economy depends on foreign tourism by about 50 percent.

I went to Sri Lanka once, we stayed in a stunning beachfront hotel in Beruwala in the Southwest of the island, and there was a lad who was advertising motor boat rides up the local river there into the jungle. Really quite impressive wildlife, can highly recommend if you ever go to Sri Lanka. Anyway, he told us that his entire family of a wife and three kids depended on him earning an income from providing these kinds of boat rides to tourists. I think we paid around £20 per person for a four-hour ride and back, so you would guess that he earned about £100 a day. Which really isn't too shabby by Sri Lankan standards, but he told us that other than that, there were next to no alternative jobs available in the area that would have paid enough to raise his kids. His cousin ran a sightseeing tour service around the area with two tired old Mitsubishi microbuses, but that, too, was about the only work he was able to get.
>> No. 426198 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 2:53 pm
426198 spacer

Cartoon of the Day-Pedants' Revolt.jpg
426198426198426198
>>426188

Duly noted.
>> No. 426199 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 2:55 pm
426199 spacer
>>426195

Sorry if my post seemed like it was aimed at you, it wasn't but at the wider environmental movement
Afaik the wider movement has made great strides in highlighting the issues but seem short on solutions. Maybe I've missed those proposals.
And to answer another poster people do always find work, but selling change as the harbinger of huge unemployment just will not work
>> No. 426201 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 3:15 pm
426201 spacer
>>426197
>In the long run, people always find other employment.
There's no evidence for this right now. Indeed, there's mounting evidence that this trend is dead, and that displaced workers will by and large not find alternative work.
>> No. 426205 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 4:49 pm
426205 spacer
>>426201

Unemployment in the UK is at record lows; the main problem is a declining quality of low-skilled work due to casualisation. We've got a lot of "self-employed" Uber and Deliveroo drivers, a lot of zero-hours security guards and healthcare assistants, but a diminishing number of people with secure full-time jobs.

Greening the economy doesn't particularly change those economic factors and may actually be beneficial. Two-thirds of British workers are in the service industry. If manufactured goods become relatively more expensive, services become relatively more attractive to consumers. Getting a massage or a nice haircut is pretty much zero-carbon. Eating at a restaurant is usually less carbon-intensive than eating at home because of economies of scale. If we can't fly any more, that could create a lot of jobs in the domestic tourism industry.

IMO the most prevalent ecomyth is that greening the economy is a step backwards towards an idyllic agrarian past, when really it's a step into the unknown. A sustainable economy won't look like the past, because a lot of modern technologies are incredibly efficient and a lot of very ordinary products and activities have massive carbon footprints. It's really hard to gain an intuitive sense of what that sustainable future will look like unless you're used to accounting for things in kilograms of CO2.

We'll have electric cars and trains and buses, we'll still have all the latest gadgets, but we won't have Primark and we'll be mostly vegan. Nobody will have a wood stove, but most people will have a heat pump and underfloor heating. We'll all wear thermal vests in winter. We'll have a lot more high-rise development, because modern tower blocks are efficient to build, efficient to run and contribute towards higher urban density and lower transport emissions. We'll still have extensive international trade (because sea freight is unbelievably efficient), but international travel will be very unusual.

https://withouthotair.com/
>> No. 426213 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 11:05 pm
426213 spacer
>>426205

Well listen mate, that's going to be shit and I want to eat noodles under neon lights while wearing goggles and spend my evenings plugged into virtual reality. We're going to ship our air in from space.

I hope you never go into politics because I don't want the future to be shaped by men with vaginas. I want Blade Runner.
>> No. 426215 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 11:29 pm
426215 spacer
>>426213

It's not a choice between a cyberpunk future and saving the planet. We'll die before the first happens.
>> No. 426216 Anonymous
24th April 2019
Wednesday 11:39 pm
426216 spacer
>>426205

>but international travel will be very unusual. 

It will depend on the availability of alternatives to kerosene. I read the other day that there are already experiments with electrical planes, but the problem as yet is energy density. No electric batteries exist so far which can pound-for-pound release as much energy per weight unit as kerosene, and weight is much more crucial on a plane than in a car.

Someday in the future, planes might run on nuclear fusion. That would really provide airplanes with an abundant power source without a noteworthy CO2 footprint. Then again, a plane crash could then turn into a nuclear radiation hazard if the reactor ruptures during a crash.
>> No. 426217 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 12:41 am
426217 spacer
>>426216 we'll have alga-derived liquid Fuels, grown in Algeria and piped over. Air travel will be expensive but it's not going to stop. Electric batteries show no sign of competing with liquid fuels any time soon, so closed cycle liquid fuels seem like a same plan.
>> No. 426218 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 1:54 am
426218 spacer
>>426216

>Then again, a plane crash could then turn into a nuclear radiation hazard if the reactor ruptures during a crash.

Though this is a valid concern, the more prescient matter would be the complete redesign of your aircraft, airport, and operations.

As it stands the only thing that separates a passenger from a fuel vent or fuel tank is a guideline placed under the wing and a bit of plane body, respectively. Even small amounts of radioactive material transported on planes have to be stored quite far away from the cabin, and Dangerous Goods licensing is expensive and strict enough that many airlines don't even bother with it despite it being quite lucrative freight.

I'm also not sure how you 'fuel' a reactor and I understand it's not in the conventional sense, but currently planes are fuelled right alongside passenger boarding and airport fuel farms are secure, but not that secure. There'd be a lot of expensive and logistically troubling infrastructure involved in running a nuclear plane.

A plane-power sized bank of lithium batteries could cause a pretty impressive disaster in a crash in their own right, even if the weight issue could be solved - and the most direct solution to this without a huge breakthrough in tech would be longer runways, which is obviously very impractical.

I'm not sure there's a biofuel out there that's anywhere near as potent as kerosene. You could still use it, but you might expect to have to land three or four times to refuel to make it across the planet. That's the most realistic option, though I suspect it might still reduce the number of airlines operating and people travelling. That might sound like a good thing, but if the planes are green but still shrinking in use, that's not really good, and will affect quite a lot in terms of freight delivery, so international goods would slow right down.
>> No. 426219 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 3:30 am
426219 spacer
>>426215

You say we'll die, but let's be realistic. It'll be brown-eyed people in poor countries that die first. I'm not saying that as a racially provoking statement but a cynical, realist one. I'm confident that first world politicians and scientists will sit up and take notice by the time climate change has wiped out two thirds of the worlds human population, and that depopulation in itself will be massively beneficial for the environment. But let's make no bone's about it- It'll be poor people in poor countries who die for it, not us. We'll be able to wring our hands and talk about how terrible it is over our dinner parties and virtue signal on the internet about it the same as we always have.
>> No. 426220 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 4:04 am
426220 spacer
>>426219

We're going to be underwater before the starving kids in Africa, though. No amount of money or politics can save us from geography.
>> No. 426222 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 4:38 am
426222 spacer
>>426220

They're going to starve long before we're underwater, though. No amount of money or politics will save them from living in the fucking polar.
>> No. 426223 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 5:49 am
426223 spacer
>>426218 I'm not sure there's a biofuel out there that's anywhere near as potent as kerosene.

Kerosene's good, but it's not magical. Plenty of other liquid hydrocarbons will do for energy density, Kerosene's a sweet spot of cheap and the right consistency at the wide range of temperatures needed.
If we end up needing to burn lard, I don't think the tank and line heaters will be a showstopper - but those crazy chemists have ways of fixing this sort of thing. The lengths they go to to convert crude oil into the profitable fractions (petrol, diesel, kerosene and feedstocks for plastics and other goodies) while crapping out saleable amounts bitumen and bunker crude suggest that once we know what's needed, they'll do the same for whatever energy source we can find.
>> No. 426224 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 7:39 am
426224 spacer
>>426219
To use an inappropriate metaphor, climate change snowballs. You can't just stop doing bad things one day and expect it to stay exactly as it is at the time. If we wait for either the floods or all the brown-eyed people to die before we take action, it'll be too late for anyone.
>> No. 426225 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 8:05 am
426225 spacer
>>426223
>If we end up needing to burn lard

I can get behind using fatties as fuel.
>> No. 426226 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 8:05 am
426226 spacer
Besides which, the sea is already rising (have a look at the frequency of use of the Thames Barrier, increasing over time) and they're already facing starvation in East Africa, South Sudan and Yemen right now. Have you forgotten that last year the Arctic Circle was on fire? Canada has a smoke season now. This is not just some hippies asking you to feel sorry for a greasy duck or some vague abstract thing that's happening a long way away with no real impact on you, this is not a problem to deal with tomorrow.
>> No. 426229 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 10:13 am
426229 spacer
Lads, I suggest we all pull together and purchase some land in a country most likely to not be completely ravaged by natural disasters and such. Then we create a commune that will inevitably fall into chaos by day 3.
>> No. 426230 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 10:24 am
426230 spacer
>>426229
Lately you lot have been a mixture of boring, annoying and only too happy to leave sentences uncapitalised, as such I'm going to have to decline. I'm sorry your bumders paradise will lack my depressive meltdowns and weird hair, but I'm sure you'll manage.
>> No. 426231 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 11:07 am
426231 spacer
>>426230
problem?
>> No. 426232 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 12:10 pm
426232 spacer
>>426218

>As it stands the only thing that separates a passenger from a fuel vent or fuel tank is a guideline placed under the wing and a bit of plane body, respectively. Even small amounts of radioactive material transported on planes have to be stored quite far away from the cabin

Not much fuel is needed for hydrogen fusion though. I'm not sure if the size relations are really correct, but our physics teacher in school once told us that if mankind ever figures out nuclear fusion as an energy source, then the hydrogen atoms contained in one can of fizzy drink would be enough to power all of London for a month. So you can imagine how little would be needed for a round trip flight from London to Sydney. A commercial airplane would then probably need refuelling very rarely. And the radioactive waste from nuclear fusion is also far less hazardous than that from a standard modern-day fission reactor. And if airplane flight recorders can be built that survive a plane falling flat out of the sky from 10,000 metres, then surely a robust hydrogen fuel container can be constructed that can store about a litre of deuterium and tritium.

A Boeing 747 needs about 100 megawatts of turbine power at takeoff, which should not be a problem, there are electric motors now that can output nearly that much as a single engine. And even smaller fission reactors nowadays produce over ten times that. The question will really be, how small will you be able to build a 100 MW fusion reactor so that it will fit comfortably inside a commercial airplane.

And then the problem will be, how do you shield your plane's electronics against the gigantic magnetic field that is needed to keep plasma in place at 10 million degrees Celsius inside your reactor so that you maintain a continuous fusion process, when even a laptop's Bluetooth module these days needs to be switched off during a flight to prevent interference.
>> No. 426233 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 2:48 pm
426233 spacer
Before we all get a Mr Fusion (and fusion powered planes), but after Fusion stops pissing around and gets cheap and reliable, I'd expect to go through a stage of electric-almost- everything, and making fuels using electricity (and possibly heat) from reactors. Crack seawater, get hydrogen, crack CO2 from atmosphere, get carbon. Glom them together into liquid fuels and use unchanged infrastructure. (Suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and stick it into concrete - use it or bury it, while you're at it. Loads of things we can do if energy gets cheap.) These are also things that might be able to run bursty, using up excess renewables and storing energy that way.
If we can fly fusion engines - won't we likely squander some of that energy hopping into space for a faster flight? Use fusion heat to push reaction mass out the back, without bothering to burn it?
>> No. 426234 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 3:25 pm
426234 spacer
>>426230
>I'm sorry your bumders paradise will lack my depressive meltdowns and weird hair, but I'm sure you'll manage.

Caitlin Moran, is that you?
>> No. 426235 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 4:03 pm
426235 spacer
>>426233

>crack CO2 from atmosphere, get carbon

I think the only process that can do that reliably on an industrial scale at present is air separation, which involves cooling down purified ambient air to the respective condensation points of the gases contained in it, at which they become liquid or solid and can be collected at the bottom of your separation apparatus. Sublimation of CO2 into solid dry ice occurs at -78 celsius, and while that isn't as low as the boiling point of other gases like oxygen (-182 degrees), you are going to have to put energy into the cooling process, and that energy needs to come either from fossil or renewable fuels. It may even lead to more fossil fuel being consumed if air separation takes up too much capacity of the available renewable sources.

I read the other day that there is a Trillion Tree Campaign, which aims at planting a trillion trees worldwide because they can take up about ten years' worth of human CO2 production.

https://www.trilliontreecampaign.org

The problem with that is that the CO2 that is stored in those trees will not be removed from the atmosphere permanently, as trees will eventually die and the microorganisms consuming the dead trees will release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

The only way to remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere would be if we had similar biospheric conditions as in the Carboniferous Age, when trees produced cellulose for the first time, which fungi and microorganisms had not yet evolved to digest. The result was a gigantic global carbon sink, which gave us coal seams hundreds of metres thick throughout the length and breadth of the Earth's land mass. And it was mainly by burning up those carbon sinks in the last 250 years that we have caused global warming.

No technology in existence today will be able to redeposit carbon dioxide back into the Earth's crust on the kind of scale and in the kind of time frame that we would need to meaningfully offset our global CO2 production.
>> No. 426236 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 4:25 pm
426236 spacer
>>426235
CO2 falls out the side of processes where you're pulling other gases out of air - because you want Oxygen, Nitrogen , Xenon, whatever. You can either let it go, sell it to users or stuff it somewhere out of sight.
Only a maniac would collect soley CO2 that way using fossil fuels - my rambling assumed fusion had got cheapish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration has a few ways to get rid of the stuff, and I'm sure I saw another great hope recently.
You're right that we've burned a fuckload of coal & oil, carefully accumulated over millions of years. Work I've seen does suggest that sequestration isn't futile, though.
Building structures out of trees (and burning the detritus for power / heat) will keep a fair amount locked up for a hundred years or so - and if structural plastics get expensive, demand for wood will go up where it can.
>> No. 426237 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 5:50 pm
426237 spacer
>>426236

>and if structural plastics get expensive, demand for wood will go up where it can

There is a company in the U.S. now which makes packaging materials from shredded corn stalks. They are filled into a mould and then incubated with a particular strain of fungus, which then forms a quite rigid structure that is similar in its properties to polyurethane hard foam. If I remember correctly, they were also looking into making building materials, e.g. heat insulation etc. from their corn stalk/fungus composite, but of course the question then still is how durable will it be before it deteriorates. Polyurethane insulation foam has a life expectancy of about 25 years depending on how much it is exposed to the elements, after which it can start to crumble into a powdery mess. So that's a kind of time frame that natural insulation materials will have to compete against.
>> No. 426241 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 7:33 pm
426241 spacer

main-qimg-a0e98eefbb27209fc6b48de96d581fa2.gif
426241426241426241
>>426232

Why wait for fusion in the distant future when you could have beautiful fission today?
Nuclear electric propulsion? Fuck that, whack a reactor in a plane and the coolant can also be the propellant. Skim a little heat off the side to power the rest of the aircraft. A model of efficiency. Perfectly safe radiation exposure for the crew and ground based persons whilst operating normally.
>> No. 426242 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 7:46 pm
426242 spacer
>>426241

>whilst operating normally

That's one heck of a caveat.
>> No. 426243 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 8:14 pm
426243 spacer
>>426241 It's lucky you don't need efficiency, since the 1400oF 'combustion' temperature is laughably far from a modern 1600oC engine. Not sure what heat transfer fluid you'd need to survive that, though.
Still, fun to think about. From a distance.
>> No. 426244 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 8:26 pm
426244 spacer
>>426241
Imagine a daft militant wog crashing one of those into a building. Have fun cleaning that up.
>> No. 426247 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 9:11 pm
426247 spacer
>>426244

Any crash with a fission powered airplane would be a miniature Fukushima. Even if the reactor remains largely intact after the impact, the coolant flow could be disrupted, and then the fission fuel will quickly heat up until there is a core meltdown and the reactor explodes on its own. So maybe you will survive the actual plane crash, but you will then die a slow painful death from radiation sickness.
>> No. 426248 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 10:35 pm
426248 spacer
>>426247
Even the best case scenario is the equivalent of a dirty bomb.
>> No. 426250 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 11:09 pm
426250 spacer
>>426243
Na cooled, too. Yum! I'm sure the SFP safety in local airports will be great, too.
>> No. 426251 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 11:24 pm
426251 spacer
>>426248

The Americans apparently had a research programme for nuclear powered military aircraft in the 1950s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion#Abandonment

It was not abandoned for the obvious reason of radiation hazards, but due to one billion dollars of public funding having disappeared into it with no tangible results:

>Kennedy wrote "15 years and about $1 billion have been devoted to the attempted development of a nuclear-powered aircraft; but the possibility of achieving a militarily useful aircraft in the foreseeable future is still very remote" in his statement officially ending the ANP on March 26, 1961.
>> No. 426252 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 11:33 pm
426252 spacer
>>426247

This is exactly why it'll never happen - even if we were able to contain it better than that, no airline would take the risk. There's a reason EasyJet etc don't carry any sort of dangerous goods in their hold - it's very, very expensive to certify your planes to carry them, and we're talking small amounts of flammable gas etc, let alone mounting a reactor to your fuselage.
>> No. 426253 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 11:35 pm
426253 spacer
Simple answer is to just not fly unless you have to. Why do you even want to go to Australia? It's a terrible place.
>> No. 426254 Anonymous
25th April 2019
Thursday 11:55 pm
426254 spacer
>>426253

>Why do you even want to go to Australia? It's a terrible place.

You could still go there the old way, on a prison sailing ship, with a travel time of a few months and about a 10 percent mortality rate among passengers.
>> No. 426256 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 12:06 am
426256 spacer
>>426254

Or take an intercontinental train to the East End of Asia and a short ride on a much nicer boat the remaining distance.
>> No. 426257 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 12:47 am
426257 spacer
>>426256

Apparently you can get to Singapore for less than the net cost of a flight in around seven weeks if you're prepared to do a bit of work along the way and happen to have a TV crew and a bunch of fixers on hand.
>> No. 426258 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 1:26 am
426258 spacer
>>426257

I'm guessing if people chose to go by train more than by flight then quicker, easier and cheaper options would appear.
Not that anyone really need travel anywhere for business reasons any more, the Internet's pretty good at that. If you want a holiday then an adventure's as good as a rest.
>> No. 426259 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 2:08 am
426259 spacer
It's a bit if a pipe dream kf mine to take the trans Siberian railway trip. I don't know how long it stops in each place though, or whether I'd get to look about and do touristy shit along the way.

Mostly it's because I find train travel to be really relaxing.
>> No. 426260 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 7:41 am
426260 spacer
>>426259

https://www.seat61.com/Trans-Siberian.htm
>> No. 426261 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 10:20 am
426261 spacer
>>426251
I find it mildly interesting how many things happened throughover 50-80s with lots of money spent and plenty of risk involved. Think this and the Apollo programmes. And something else I can't recall right now for shit.
Was it easier back then?
>> No. 426262 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 11:27 am
426262 spacer
>>426261
cold war, innit.
There were some downsides.
>> No. 426263 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 12:48 pm
426263 spacer
>>426262
>>426261

The West had a reputation to defend against thar evil Commies. The NASA space programmes were in that sense little more than a gigantic self marketing campaign.

Some people say that now that there no longer is a Communist Bloc, the West has lost the incentive to make itself appear as the better system. And so now you have things like mass surveillance of citizens and erosion of wealth, income and security among the common people, but it's not considered a big problem, because communism as an alternative that the people might choose if they were to revolt no longer exists for all intents and purposes.
>> No. 426265 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 2:05 pm
426265 spacer
>>426262
The cold war is only really part of the explanation. It's fascinating that our investment in this sort of thing really died off in the 70s and early 80s. In a rational world we'd have killed it all off after the collapse of the USSR, but we didn't. The end of the Apollo program could potentially be explained in part by Detente, but that wouldn't explain why we kept cutting once the cold war started to heat up again with the invasion of Svalbard.

The best (partial) explanation that I know of is that neoliberalism as a political project set about (somewhat unconsciously) to make capitalism seem like the only viable economic system. Between approaches that would make capitalism more viable, but leave open the option for an alternative (like continuing with investment in space, or having the stability of postwar social democracy, or not boiling the planet and killing everyone), or those that would make it less viable but seem like the only option available (like going into our current financialised bizarreconomy, where even 2008 couldn't kill it off. or doing nothing about climate change) we find history breaking for the latter every time. But that's much too abstract for my liking and doesn't really fit with the chronology that early in the 70s and 80s. It seems much more like an emergent property of the victory of neoliberalism, rather than something that was there from the very beginning.
>> No. 426266 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 3:22 pm
426266 spacer
>>426263

>The NASA space programmes were in that sense little more than a gigantic self marketing campaign.

Most of the space race had direct military applications. The Sputnik rocket was a lightly-modified R-7 ICBM; to this day, a significant number of satellites are launched using decommissioned Soviet ICBMs. The Space Shuttle was designed from the ground-up as a launch and retrieval platform for the KH-9 spy satellite; the Hubble telescope was built to the same dimensions, which provided a plausible cover story. A lot of the ground-based equipment you need for running a space programme works just as well for communicating with spy satellites, monitoring missile tests and so on. Having loads of civilian space activity makes it easier to conceal your military operations.

The same goes for nuclear power. Britain's first nuclear reactors were solely intended to produce plutonium for nuclear warheads; Sellafield was originally a Royal Ordnance Factory used for producing TNT during the second world war. Again, civilian nuclear power provides a useful cover story for nuclear weapons development, as we have seen most recently in Iran. If you have loads of nuclear power plants (and the associated industries supplying them), it's much easier to hide your nuclear weapons programme in plain sight.
>> No. 426267 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 5:10 pm
426267 spacer
>>426266
ISTR that Windscale 1 produced little if any power initially, meaning that it was effectively running at a massive loss.
>> No. 426268 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 5:35 pm
426268 spacer
>>426267
You can't put a price on weapons-grade Plutonium!
>> No. 426270 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 5:44 pm
426270 spacer
>>426267

The Windscale piles didn't even have generating turbines, they just made plutonium, steam and a shitload of high-grade waste. They could have used them to generate power, but they never bothered. Calder Hall (the second generation of reactors at the Sellafield site) was mainly designed to produce plutonium, but incidentally generated a modest amount of electricity.

The Sellafield site is now arguably the most dangerous nuclear waste facility on earth, largely because of the chaotic and half-arsed management of the Windscale project. They just dumped fuel rods and reactor components into open ponds, without even bothering to keep count. One of the reactors caught fire, cracked open and had to be encased in concrete. Back in the 80s when decommissioning started, BNFL ran ads in the local paper asking people to get in touch if they worked on Windscale; the record-keeping was so inadequate that asking ex-employees was deemed to be the best option for estimating how much waste had been produced and where it all went. We're not sure how long it'll take to clean up the mess, but the earliest estimate is some time in the 2040s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_Piles
>> No. 426271 Anonymous
26th April 2019
Friday 6:20 pm
426271 spacer
>>426266

I think it was some Greek or Roman philosopher who 2000 years ago said "War is the beginning of everything".

Even the Internet as we know it today and use it mainly for cunt offs on .gs started as the ARPANET, a U.S. Department of Defence project whose main purpose it was to provide a decentralised electronic communications infrastructure which would continue to function if one of its servers or nodes would be destroyed in a nuclear attack.
>> No. 426284 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 10:04 am
426284 spacer
>>426283
We heard you the first time, m7.
>> No. 426285 Anonymous
27th April 2019
Saturday 11:52 am
426285 spacer
>>426284
Back to /A/ for me.
>> No. 426309 Anonymous
28th April 2019
Sunday 11:05 pm
426309 spacer
>>426270

>The Sellafield site is now arguably the most dangerous nuclear waste facility on earth, largely because of the chaotic and half-arsed management of the Windscale project.

Also, near enough the entire Irish Sea has one of the highest levels of radioactive radiation of any salt water sea on Earth. It may not be so bad that it's a health hazard to swim in or consume seafood caught from it, and the coastal waters of Fukushima are probably far worse still, but it's all the result of Sellafield leaking radioactive material into the Irish Sea for half a century.
>> No. 426349 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 9:29 pm
426349 spacer
I know you're all excited by game of thrones and the new sonic film but the government just declared a climate emergency.
That boy Owen Jones really gets into his speeches.
>> No. 426351 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 10:30 pm
426351 spacer
>>426349
Lad, I know you feel compelled to sustain interest in this thread and covert others around to your way of thinking but praising Owen Jones really isn't the way to go about it.
>> No. 426352 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 10:57 pm
426352 spacer
>>426351
I wasn't praising him as such. He does an interesting thing with his hands when he speaks. Looks a little familiar.
>> No. 426354 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 11:40 pm
426354 spacer

breakingnews.jpg
426354426354426354
>>426349

>but the government just declared a climate emergency
>> No. 426355 Anonymous
1st May 2019
Wednesday 11:47 pm
426355 spacer
>>426354
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126677
>> No. 426356 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 12:31 am
426356 spacer
>>426355
Come on, Anon's already decided he's too smart to bother actually reading the news, he's even got a pertinent reaction image to show you how right he probably is.
>> No. 426357 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 12:46 am
426357 spacer
>>426355

>This proposal, which demonstrates the will of the Commons on the issue but does not legally compel the government to act, was approved without a vote.

That seems a bit undemocratic.
>> No. 426358 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 5:31 am
426358 spacer
>>426355
>Dozens of towns and cities across the UK have already declared "a climate emergency". There is no single definition of what that means but many local areas say they want to be carbon-neutral by 2030.

I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. It seems largely symbolic; a sign that politicians are shown to be doing something, hopping on the bandwagon without really committing to anything, to placate people whilst having enough wiggle room to do very little.

We're facing a social care crisis due to the aging population and the government have pledged to do something since they came into power in 2010. The Dilnot Commission published its report in July 2011 and whilst there has been a lot of noise about doing something it has largely been kicked into the long grass.
>> No. 426359 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 8:36 am
426359 spacer
>>426357
It means literally nothing, so I wouldn't worry too much.
>> No. 426360 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 8:40 am
426360 spacer
Reading the independent today, plenty of stories on climate emergency and Heathrow expansion being bad for the environment. All along side an article reviewing gas bbq's
>> No. 426361 Anonymous
2nd May 2019
Thursday 9:12 am
426361 spacer
>>426358
>I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. It seems largely symbolic; a sign that politicians are shown to be doing something,
I think everyone is aware of this; all the speeches given by MPs last night were sandwiched by activists reminding the crowd that it's "deeds not words" that count. If you look at XR's three stated demands this is only the first. What it does mean is that there's less wiggle room in environmental debates for deniers. When discussing whether or not a new runway or motorway should be built it is going to be helpful that this can be pointed to.
>> No. 426425 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 12:20 pm
426425 spacer
>>426361

>When discussing whether or not a new runway or motorway should be built

Sometimes that can alleviate traffic congestion though, and is actually something that saves CO2.
>> No. 426426 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 12:32 pm
426426 spacer
>>426425

Road building rarely has a long-term beneficial impact on congestion because of induced demand - the traffic moves more freely, so more people are inclined to use the road, until you're more-or-less back where you started. More intelligent road design (especially junction design) can meaningfully reduce congestion, but we really need a broader strategy encompassing public transport, flexible working and telecommuting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
>> No. 426427 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 1:23 pm
426427 spacer
>>426426

I'm not sure anyone has every thought. Oh boy the airport has more runways I should fly more.
>> No. 426428 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 2:09 pm
426428 spacer
>>426427

>Oh boy the airport has more runways I should fly more.

Sure, but what about "oh, I can fly to x now? That's good, I'll do that" or "oh, the plane that flies to y is twice as big now so it's considerably cheaper? Yes please" or even "my commuter flight is three times as frequent? Maybe I could jump back on the weekends more easily/more often now!"
>> No. 426429 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 2:13 pm
426429 spacer
>>426427

Airport landing slots are a scarce and valuable commodity that contribute significantly to the cost of a flight - that's why low-cost carriers operate out of less busy second-tier airports. More runways means more landing slots, which means cheaper flights; it's basic economics that people are more inclined to buy flights if they cost less.
>> No. 426430 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 2:20 pm
426430 spacer
>>426427
Airlines certainly have. Passengers have also definitely thought "I wish I didn't have to travel all the way to $airport instead of $nearer-airport".

>>426426
There's a lot that can be learned about traffic flow from fluid dynamics. For all the shit that people threw at the M4 bus lane, it improved traffic flow by eliminating a merge in the middle of nowhere and instead putting the lane drop at a junction. Imagine a pipe suddenly being narrowed and water backing up at the bottleneck. Now imagine a run-off at the same place.

Contrast this with the M4 around Newport, especially westbound. You have local and long-distance traffic all trying to fit through two lanes and failing miserably. Further down at Port Talbot, traffic flow improved noticeably when one awkward slip road was closed during the peaks. At Newport, you have people using the back streets as rat runs, and generally getting through the area more quickly than actually using the motorway. The proposed relief road takes away the long-distance traffic from there, and puts traffic that should be on the motorway back on the motorway instead of on the streets.
>> No. 426431 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 4:19 pm
426431 spacer
This all got me thinking: will we see another era of sea transport?

Prototypes for electric jet engines exist, and I suppose for shorter flights we can have electrified prop planes, but with the ongoing issue of energy storage I'm not sure how far we'll get with them in the foreseeable future.

A big ship, however, has plenty of space to store electrical energy. I suppose either way, international transport is going to become a luxury few can afford once again, at least for a while.
>> No. 426432 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 4:35 pm
426432 spacer
>>426431
>This all got me thinking: will we see another era of sea transport?
Betteridge says no.

Part of the issue with key engines is that they rely on the combustion, so turning the blades by other means isn't going to cut it. Something like hydrogen might be more useful in that context, since you still get the propulsion but the by-product is water vapour rather than various oxides of carbon. To a lesser extent you could also power ship engines in much the same way as now using hydrogen. Given a ship has very little area for its volume, even moreso for larger vessels (square-cube and all that), photovoltaic cells aren't really going to cut it, and charging a ship-sized battery would surely take days on end.
>> No. 426433 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:10 pm
426433 spacer
>>426431

The modern era demands speed and excess so it's unlikely we'll see a return to ocean transport for passengers. You can't ask people to give up their cushy lifestyle now to save their fucking lives in a few years.

Anyway specifically with regards to ocean transport electric ships are a daft idea, they need too much energy.
What the ocean gives us instead is the one place where you can easily use the wind for direct propulsion. But the age of sail is long past in spite of the elegance of the solution (especially augmented with mechanical propulsion for when the weather is unfavourable).

I probably almost sound like a neo-luddite and I'm progressively finding fewer issues with a label like that.
>> No. 426434 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:18 pm
426434 spacer
>>426433
It takes around a week to cross the Atlantic by sea. A week there and a week back and you've already used up half your holidays without even doing anything over there.
>> No. 426435 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:20 pm
426435 spacer
>>426432
>charging a ship-sized battery would surely take days on end
Sure, but cruise ships and the like dock for days during tours anyway.

>Hydrogen
Hydrogen is a really nice solution once we can figure out how to get it in bulk at energy neutrality or better. I welcome the era of V20 12 litre displacement hydrogen combustion engines. Of course, hydrogen combustion happens at a much higher temperature and we need to store it under immense pressure, so there are those issues.

>>426433
>The modern era demands speed and excess
Eventually, not long from now, we will (functionally) run out of jet fuel. What I mean by functionally is that it will become prohibitively expensive. People will still want/need international travel, though.

>Sails

Maybe people will fuck them off now, but when needs must and all that.
>> No. 426436 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:37 pm
426436 spacer
>>426434

Well maybe traveling 1/3rd of the way across the globe for a couple of week's holiday just isn't sustainable. Ask most people from the planet and that would seem like an extravagant, unobtainable expense for the rich. We're just used to the excess.
>> No. 426437 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:42 pm
426437 spacer
>>426436
Maybe for two weeks holiday, but people will still need to travel internationally for business, family, etc. Plus, we are currently chugging through insane amounts of illegal red diesel for shipping anyway, surely we'll need a way around that.
>> No. 426438 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:47 pm
426438 spacer
>>426437

People have had family migrate across the world for long before air travel became convenient, and in a time before they could communicate instantly with video feeds from anywhere. People can keep in contact over distances without needing to meet frequently.
And I'm not saying to eliminate all air travel, just most of it. It's excessive at the moment. A lot of business could be conducted through the internet too if people would adapt.
>> No. 426439 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:48 pm
426439 spacer
>>426438
Of course, that's the point I'm making. There will still be transport, no matter how much we streamline everything.
>> No. 426440 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:50 pm
426440 spacer
>>426435

>Hydrogen

I think the more realistic development will be production of hydrocarbons from renewable sources, and by methods that won't infringe on arable land for food. That way you can use all the good old fashioned stuff without a net change in the carbon cycle of the planet.
>> No. 426441 Anonymous
5th May 2019
Sunday 5:58 pm
426441 spacer
>>426436
If the planet is fucked anyway, why not go all out and see it before it's gone?
>> No. 426453 Anonymous
6th May 2019
Monday 12:32 am
426453 spacer

Shamima-Begum-being-interviewed-by-Sky-News-in-Nor.jpg
426453426453426453
We should build windmills and stuff
>> No. 426455 Anonymous
6th May 2019
Monday 2:43 am
426455 spacer
>>426453
>SICK And VILE ISIS plot to Devalue YOUR PROPERTY with Twisted Green Energy Takeover
>> No. 426456 Anonymous
6th May 2019
Monday 10:01 pm
426456 spacer

bytheemperor.jpg
426456426456426456
>>426441

The incoming ecological collapse is the Emperor's will: when government will be forced to accept the fact that Terra is going to be uninhabitable soon, they will put their shit together and start funding proper space research, space propulsion and terraforming. First we will start building a series of massive platforms in LEO, then lunar habitats, then we'll start the process of terraforming Mars and moving all the heavy industries and research there. We are on the cusp of evolution for the human race, Greta is just a Warp spawned monster trying to distract humanity from its designated, manifest destiny as rightful rulers of the galaxy.
>> No. 426458 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 12:36 am
426458 spacer
>>426456
Just don't wake the dragon on Mars.
>> No. 426459 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 12:41 am
426459 spacer

Chaos_Star_Khorne.png
426459426459426459
>>426456

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! TURBINES FOR THE WIND FARM!
>> No. 426467 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 12:54 pm
426467 spacer

Klima-Aktivistin-Greta-Thunberg-fuer-den-Friedensn.jpg
426467426467426467
Why do I keep thinking Greta Thunberg looks like a South Park character.
>> No. 426469 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 12:59 pm
426469 spacer

xYHGstTKNxkpB0BIhzBKRx7VOOvYpqASbM9L3WJ3ZhI.png
426469426469426469
>>426467
Real life Cartman.
>> No. 426470 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 1:16 pm
426470 spacer

154102e128bf20f7348192376172.gif
426470426470426470
>>426469

Normally the creators of South Park are on these things quite immediately. A pigtailed four and a half foot sperg girl like her travelling the globe with a political agenda is a South Park episode that just begs to be written if any episode ever did.
>> No. 426471 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 1:46 pm
426471 spacer
>>426467

Because you've watched so many cartoons that you relate better to them than real life.
>> No. 426488 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 7:12 pm
426488 spacer

cover.jpg
426488426488426488
>>426458

There is no such thing, you doubleheretic. The Noctis Labyrinthus is just closed for renovations. No void dragon there.
>> No. 426505 Anonymous ## Mod ##
7th May 2019
Tuesday 8:22 pm
426505 spacer
Enough of that.
>> No. 426506 Anonymous
7th May 2019
Tuesday 8:23 pm
426506 spacer
>>426471

>Because you've watched so many cartoons that you relate better to them than real life.

South Park usually hits the nail on the head though.
>> No. 426534 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 4:41 pm
426534 spacer
>>426505

Enough of 40k or enough of the psudo noncing. I'm not trying to be confrontational. It is just unclear.
>> No. 426535 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 5:14 pm
426535 spacer
>>426534

>It is just unclear.

You poor fool.
>> No. 426546 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 6:25 pm
426546 spacer
>>426534
Both? I've seen those Games Workshop places, it's just nerdy kiddies and proper wrong'uns hanging about. And they wanted silly money for super glue that one time.
>> No. 426550 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 6:54 pm
426550 spacer
>>426546

SUFFER NOT THE HERETIC TO LIVE!
>> No. 426551 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 6:58 pm
426551 spacer
>>426546

>nerdy kiddies and proper wrong'uns

All of them undoubtedly virgins.
>> No. 426559 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 11:51 pm
426559 spacer
>>426551

I mean a lot of people got into warhammer when they were nerdy virgins, grow into fairly respectable adults then find out it's still enjoyable as such.

I just started collecting (well, re-painting my old metal stuff) again because painting's really satisfying and the miniatures are mostly great, if fucking stupidly priced. I also love the setting in spite of the specific lore being a bit of a retconned fudged mess a lot of the time.
>> No. 426562 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 12:03 pm
426562 spacer
>>426559

Back then you could not enter a GW shop unless you were a complete weirdo with a 2+ permavirginity aura. Now there are a lot of normies in the game, the DOW games have turned 40K in something way more acceptable by the masses.
>> No. 426566 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 1:07 pm
426566 spacer
>>426559
>>426562

This is very true. I still don't go into the shops, and I've only had a handful of games, but I got into it again last year after nearly 18 years. I've restored my old Blood Angels and Necrons to their former glory, and I've found that when you're a grown man with a real job it's actually not as expensive as you think to get a box of dudes maybe once a month. It takes me that long to get around to painting them anyway.

You'd be surprised how many people have been saying it recently though. I think it's undergoing a very specific renaissance where people who used to play as teenage in the late 90s are reaching the age where they're settling down, and need something to spend their weekends doing instead of boozing and chasing tail. The game itself in its current edition is a conscious throwback to aspects of 2nd and 3rd ed.

It's a good time to be a Warhammer nerd, basically.
>> No. 426609 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 5:41 pm
426609 spacer

0_TCR_BRI_090519GlueMan1_1.jpg
426609426609426609
This is the moment a climate change protester tried to superglue himself to the doors of City Hall - but was stumped because they kept opening before he could get there.

University research fellow Dr Larch Maxey tried several times to approach the automatic doors of the headquarters of Bristol City Council, after covering his hands with superglue, but gave up when he couldn’t get to the doors fast enough before they opened.


https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/moment-activist-tried-superglue-himself-2850010

The video of the activist repeatedly failing to comprehend that he won't be able to glue himself to automatic doors because they keep opening as he gets near them is worth a watch. Nothing like an educated fool.
>> No. 426610 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 5:48 pm
426610 spacer
>>426609 He's prepared to inconvenience people by gluing himself to the doors, but won't stick his foot in there to stop them opening?
I'm confused, or missing the point, or something.
>> No. 426614 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:10 pm
426614 spacer
>>426610
A lot of people who are academically bright have incredibly low levels of common sense and practical know-how.
>> No. 426619 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:52 pm
426619 spacer
>>426609
I wish automatic doors were that responsive to me. Wherever I go I need to be practically touching my nose to them before they'll open, especially Asda, numerous Asdas at that.
>> No. 426623 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 7:45 pm
426623 spacer
>>426614

My brother once had all his engineer friends over to help him move. All of them were probably well capable of designing a washing machine motor on a drawing board, but when it came to actually physically moving a washing machine or a fridge from a second floor flat into the back of a Ford Transit, they were hopelessly out of their depth.
>> No. 426652 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 10:09 pm
426652 spacer
>>426619
Have you ever considered that you might be a ghost?
>> No. 426659 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 10:32 pm
426659 spacer
>>426652
Who are you replying to?
>> No. 426663 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 10:54 pm
426663 spacer
>>426619

Did you remember to switch your cloaking device off?

Does a number on me all the time.
>> No. 426954 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 10:53 am
426954 spacer

1.png
426954426954426954
As you read this, I'm sitting in a big container outside BP's HQ in London, blocking one of the main entrances to the building. Along with a team of climbers on the roof, and more people in containers like mine, we've shut down the building. This is one of the scariest things I've ever done, but I know it's the right thing.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2416614758619602
These lasses don't fuck about like.
>> No. 426955 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 10:55 am
426955 spacer
The containers, each weighing several tonnes, are being used to blockade all five entrances to prevent staff from entering BP’s offices in St James’s Square.

Two activists are encased in each of the five containers with enough provisions to last at least a week. Another 15 activists are occupying the top of the boxes after abseiling down the side of the building.

Greenpeace said it was carrying out the action because BP was behaving as if the climate emergency was not happening.

>> No. 426956 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 11:06 am
426956 spacer
>>426954
>>426955
Damn, I'm impressed. I wonder if there's some kind of protest tactics arms race going between Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace now?
>> No. 426960 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 11:25 am
426960 spacer
>>426956
It's not each other that they're competing with.
>> No. 426962 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 11:43 am
426962 spacer
>>426960
Of course it is, they're playing Who can be bigger bunch of twats? together.
>> No. 426963 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 12:01 pm
426963 spacer
>>426960

It is. It's abundantly clear that nobody else is listening.
>> No. 426969 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 2:46 pm
426969 spacer
>>426955

>Two activists are encased in each of the five containers with enough provisions to last at least a week. Another 15 activists are occupying the top of the boxes after abseiling down the side of the building.

If that goes bad. I foresee it going very bad.
>> No. 426970 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 3:26 pm
426970 spacer
>>426969

A shipping container is luxury accommodation by eco-warrior standards. Some road protesters spent weeks in tunnels that the Viet Cong would have called a deathtrap.



https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/waca/pages/1191/attachments/original/1507710581/disco_daves_tunnelling_guide.pdf?1507710581
>> No. 426976 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 4:41 pm
426976 spacer
definitely would
>> No. 426983 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 6:11 pm
426983 spacer
>>426962
Sounds like you have them beaten hands down.
>> No. 426989 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 8:32 pm
426989 spacer
>>426970
Why have I never heard of sheriffs in England & Wales before?
>> No. 426990 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 8:49 pm
426990 spacer
>>426989
Most people don't need to deal with them, because they either don't owe or aren't owed enough money for them to get involved. Their proper title these days is High Court Enforcement Officers.
>> No. 426994 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 9:30 pm
426994 spacer

Legal-Sunday-Service-June-2016-HS-Somerset-Cornwal.jpg
426994426994426994
>>426990
Pretty sure those were called bailiffs in the compilation.

No, I mean this lot, who continue to exist.
>> No. 426995 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 9:36 pm
426995 spacer
>>426994
Bailiffs enforce judgments from the County Court.

I think those fancy-pants types are called High Sheriffs.
>> No. 426997 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 10:03 pm
426997 spacer
>>426994

High Sheriffs used to have responsibility for enforcing High Court writs until 2004, when that was transferred to the court itself. Naturally the lads and lasses with daft ruffs didn't go out dragging road protesters out of trees and seizing vans, they deputised it to their own bailiffs. They're still technically responsible for overseeing local elections, but that gets deputised to the returning officer.

We're British, we're obliged to have loads of archaic institutions that used to have a practical purpose but are now merely ceremonial. I imagine that in the far future, we'll send a frazzled-looking woman to Brussels every year to ask for an "Article 50 extension"; nobody in that part of China will have a clue what she's on about, but they'll give her a fancy bit of paper with a big wax seal because the tradition is cute.
>> No. 426998 Anonymous
20th May 2019
Monday 11:24 pm
426998 spacer
>>426997

>I imagine that in the far future, we'll send a frazzled-looking woman to Brussels every year to ask for an "Article 50 extension"

Audible mirth.

I mean, you're taking the piss but that really is how most of our wierd parliamentary traditions came to be, and it's daft enough that one day you'll sit with your head in your hands despairing how accurate of a prediction it was.
>> No. 427150 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 12:29 pm
427150 spacer
Looks like Sweden has grown tired of its poster child.

https://www.thelocal.se/20190528/europe-analysis-why-swedens-greens-are-happy-after-losing-big-in-eu-vote

>While its sister parties in Germany, France, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and the UK made historic gains, the Swedish Green Party lost half of its four MEPs after its share of the vote plummeted from 15.2 percent to 11.4 percent.

I think I remember reading about political phaenomena like that, i.e. when the public believe that enough is being done about a political issue, they will actually vote for the party in fewer numbers that seems to be the most active on the issue.

Could be that Swedes think they've got the environmentall issues all taken care of for now (maybe also in part because they've got their little sperg girl touring the globe), and now other fields of politics seem more important.
>> No. 427151 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 1:05 pm
427151 spacer
>>427150

The Greens have done well more broadly, going from 50 to 69 seats in total. The EPP and S&D are 50 seats short of a majority for this parliament, so that gain is materially significant - the Greens have enough seats to make them a plausible junior partner in a grand coalition and they're probably the least phlegmatic choice.

The ECR and EFDD are a complete no-go, because they're dominated by the Tories and the Brexit Party and respectively; ENF and GUE are too mental to contemplate. S&D will be wary of a coalition with ALDE, because they were previously in coalition with the EPP and have enough seats to undermine S&D; it could also complicate the Brexit process, because Verhofstadt is the leader of ALDE.

The rise of the right isn't all that significant to the day-to-day workings of the EP, but the loss of the EPP/S&D majority and the rise of the Greens is.
>> No. 427155 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 3:27 pm
427155 spacer
>>427150
We'll see how they feel about it again later in the year if the forest fires start back up.
>> No. 427157 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 4:10 pm
427157 spacer
>>427155
But I thought they didn't have forest fires in Scandinavia because they rake the leaves or something.
>> No. 427158 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 4:11 pm
427158 spacer
>>427155

You can't wholely blame forest fires on global warming though. The problem is drought, and that can set a forest on fire at 30°C same as 20 degrees.

On that note, we went on holiday in central Sweden once, rented a country cabin on a lake there. Somewhere near Jonkoping. Froze our arses off in mid-July there because almost during the whole two weeks that we were there, it barely got above 15°C during the day. And the few days that we did have 23 to 25 degrees, we had to fight off myriads of mosquitoes and other biting insects.
>> No. 427166 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 9:52 pm
427166 spacer
Can someone please explain water to me? It's really blagging my head.

I get the water cycle and everything but where did water come from in the first place? Presumably our planet was just a barren rock and then one day water just appeared and continued amassing, possibly due to atmospheric conditions. Is the amount of water on our planet decreasing or increasing? If it is increasing then where is it coming from? If it is decreasing then where is it going? Presumably human intervention is making the water cycle more convoluted and longer, but the net result is that the cumulative amount of water on the planet, either physically water, vapour or in the ground, is somewhat constant?
>> No. 427168 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 10:10 pm
427168 spacer
>>427166
Ancient aliens lad. They brought the water from their space lake.
>> No. 427169 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 10:11 pm
427169 spacer
>>427166
>I get the water cycle and everything but where did water come from in the first place?

Scientists aren't 100% sure themselves.
It's thought that a lot of it came from comets, that there was a huge bombardment of comets in the early days of the planets formation and they bought all the water from the outer solar system.

The amount of water on the planet is very constant, there is a minuscule amount lost every year, as molecules that get high enough into the atmosphere can get stripped away into space by solar radiation.
There is also another aspect to the water cycle, where water gets dragged down into the crust by plate tectonics, and back into the atmosphere from volcanoes.
>> No. 427170 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 10:28 pm
427170 spacer
>>427158
What do you think causes drought?
>> No. 427171 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 10:28 pm
427171 spacer
>>427166

The amount of water on Earth is mostly constant, because water vapour is too dense to escape from the atmosphere.

We don't really know how water ended up on Earth, but it probably either arrived while the Earth was being formed in our sun's protoplanetary disk, or landed on comets from the Oort cloud. Where that water came from is a long story:


>> No. 427178 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 11:42 pm
427178 spacer
>>427171

>because water vapour is too dense to escape from the atmosphere

More than that, we have the Earth's magnetic field to tank for the fact that we still have water. The energetically charged particles of the solar wind are able to break up the water molecules in a planet's atmosphere into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen in particular as the lightest known element can then be blown off into space easily by the solar wind. The going theory is that that is what happened to Mars when its magnetic field disappeared following the cooling and solidification of its core. The very thin carbon dioxide atmosphere that Mars has today and which has only a few percent of the density of the Earth's atmosphere is thought to be the remainder of what used to be a mixture of various different gases like on Earth. Everything else was blown off into space, and carbon dioxide as a very stable molecule remained because the energy of the solar wind isn't enough to break up CO2 into its constituents.
>> No. 427179 Anonymous
28th May 2019
Tuesday 11:56 pm
427179 spacer
I don't understand how where water came from is any more of a mystery than where rocks came from. It's all just shit that's floating around in space and gets accumulated into large spheres called "planets" thanks to gravity. There's the same basic materials on Earth as there is in asteroids. We just have a particular mix of them which is no surprise as most planets seem to have different particular mixes.
>> No. 427183 Anonymous
29th May 2019
Wednesday 3:27 am
427183 spacer
>>427179

I actually causes offence in an online group when I dismissed an article posted which stated that the Earth got its water from the collision with another body which caused the moon to form- as if it's impossible for the Earth to have just accumulated water from comet impacts. I think they thought I was anti science because I don't automatically believe the latest pop-sci article I read.

Planet formation is an enormously complicated process really, and we just don't have enough data to say much with certainty about it. We have these fantastic models, but they keep getting called into question when we find new exoplanets. It's all very interesting.

Planets don't just accumulate from whatever shit's floating about. They also lose mass due to a variety of factors. For instance, planets can lose water through the photodisassociation of water to free hydrogen, which can be lost in the solar wind. Whether that happens can depend on its gravity and magnetic field.
>> No. 427224 Anonymous
30th May 2019
Thursday 1:34 am
427224 spacer
>>427183

I think the biggest mystery is how a planet at a distance from the Sun like ours was able to obtain enough water to cover 71% of the Earth's surface at an overall average depth of 3,800 metres.

The radiation pressure from the Sun blew almost all of the free water in the early Solar System to the outer parts of the system, as well as most gases, which is assumed to be why the gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn exist at a considerable distance from the Sun. So the question then is where the water really came from. The very early Earth very probably had no water at all while its naked rock surface was still cooling down. And as I said, it can't have come from the Earth's direct vicinity. So either the Earth was formed further out on the edges of the Solar System and was then somehow drawn into the inner zone where it is now, or some very large water-containing comets hit the Earth before the Sun could dissolve them like it usually does with comets that come closer to it.
>> No. 427228 Anonymous
30th May 2019
Thursday 9:36 am
427228 spacer
>https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/29/energy-department-molecules-freedom-fossil-fuel-rebranding
>Mark W Menezes, the US undersecretary of energy, bestowed a peculiar honorific on our continent’s natural resources, dubbing it “freedom gas”
>“Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi Germany occupation, the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” - Rick Perry

What I'm saying is we didn't fight hard enough during the American Revolutionary War.
>> No. 427229 Anonymous
30th May 2019
Thursday 9:56 am
427229 spacer
>>427228

That's a bit abstruse even for the Trump Administration.

Makes you wish back the old days when they just flat out bombed countries to bring them peace.
>> No. 427231 Anonymous
30th May 2019
Thursday 12:16 pm
427231 spacer
>>427228
There's this
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juliana-versus-united-states-the-climate-change-lawsuit-that-could-stop-the-u-s-government-from-supporting-fossil-fuels-60-minutes/
though I'm not holding my breath for it.
>> No. 427234 Anonymous
30th May 2019
Thursday 12:50 pm
427234 spacer
>>427224
>>427183

Is it not more logical to just assume that the earth was mostly water to begin with? A giant ball of ice that accumulated more rock over time rather than the other way round.
>> No. 427236 Anonymous
30th May 2019
Thursday 2:28 pm
427236 spacer
>>427234
No.
>> No. 427237 Anonymous
30th May 2019
Thursday 2:52 pm
427237 spacer
Check out #noplant19 on twitter too.
>> No. 427245 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 1:50 pm
427245 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
This guy talks about the deterioration of what could be Earths most fertile lands. He claims to have found a way to restore the land to its previous vigor, and how this can help reduce - if not significantly reverse - climate change.
This leads me to wonder; there is a fair display of vegans in the climate change crowd. Vegans want to reduce demand for meat. According to this video, doesn't it follow that vegans accelerate climate change?
>> No. 427246 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 3:14 pm
427246 spacer
>>427245
There are loads of people with big ideas going nowhere. It's mostly just clickbait.
>> No. 427247 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 3:50 pm
427247 spacer
>>427245

He's an obvious crank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_management_(agriculture)#Criticism
>> No. 427248 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 4:08 pm
427248 spacer
>>427245

Don't try getting people to actually think about the logical conclusions of their beliefs lad, it only leads to madness and frustration. Vegans, fisherfolk, religionists, libertarians... There are a lot of people out there convinced that their ideology is the one truth, who willingly ignore the negative repercussions that would quickly become evident if they were to get just exactly what they wished for.
>> No. 427249 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 4:24 pm
427249 spacer
>>427248

You sound like you're an absolute delight at parties.
>> No. 427250 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 5:26 pm
427250 spacer
>>427249
And you're a useless cunt.
>> No. 427251 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 5:34 pm
427251 spacer

Capture.png
427251427251427251
How is it that we as a species have less self control than bad algae?
>> No. 427252 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 5:54 pm
427252 spacer
>>427249

Someone has used that exact reply in another thread recently. There are only three of us so I'm willing to believe that was you too.

Don't use put downs more than once a year, mate, this board moves slowly enough we'll notice. In fact, even once a year is probably pushing it.
>> No. 427253 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 5:57 pm
427253 spacer
>>427245
>This leads me to wonder; there is a fair display of vegans in the climate change crowd. Vegans want to reduce demand for meat. According to this video, doesn't it follow that vegans accelerate climate change?
There are a lot of problems with our current meat industry. We need to see a big shift in use of land, we need to stop raising livestock on grain and processed feeds, stop cutting down rainforests to make space for livestock, and move all the livestock away from arable land.

To do so would mean moving virtually all cattle away from the Americas and Europe and into Africa and the middle east. I don't know if it is feasible to produce enough meat that way, but there would certainly be huge logistical difficulties in doing this, and meat would be more expensive.

>>427247
I think he is over-optimistic definitely.
However I don't see much evidence that there are any serious issues with what he is saying. The core of the criticism is firstly that his evidence is mainly anecdotal (which doesn't necessarily mean incorrect), and secondly other people have had poor success in replicating his results.
Both the first and second criticism can be countered by the fact that on the scales needed -hundreds or thousands of hectares, herds of livestock a thousand strong, and many unskilled labourers- it is virtually impossible to run the sort of closely controlled scientific study that the critics demand.
Anecdotal evidence is the best we're going to get.
>> No. 427254 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 6:14 pm
427254 spacer
>>427253

I don't buy vegans though. There's always something of a holier than thou air about them. At least the ones I know personally. They think they are the personified solution to the world's future problems, and look down on you the poor meat eating brute who hasn't seen the light. There tends to be something almost religious about them, and they tend to preach their faith that way to the unbelievers.
>> No. 427255 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 6:26 pm
427255 spacer

vegan.jpg
427255427255427255

>> No. 427257 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 6:40 pm
427257 spacer
I'd be fine with vegans, we're it not for the fact you cannot have a balanced diet without protein, and the amino acids which are specifically found in animal meat. It's fine if you want to chose a diet based on ethics alone, and make your life a massive pain in the arse to compensate for its nutritional shortcomings, but it's a bit rich to expect others to do the same when they could just... Eat some meat.

That's the part that bugs me more than anything. We should eat less meat and be more humane about how we farm it, but you literally need meat to fulfil your nutritional requirements and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking hippie liar.
>> No. 427258 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 6:41 pm
427258 spacer
>>427255

That cartoon is biased though. The vegans I know aren't like "Please become vegan, k thx bai", no, it's more like, "You're eating an animal's suffering every time you are having a steak".

All I can say is, I do catch and kill fishing. All these people who theorise about killing animals and how much suffering it causes them have very universally no idea how it feels to kill a creature for food. My favourite saying in that respect is that you don't fully appreciate life until you have killed a creature for food with your own hands. I have great respect for the idea that animals that we raise for food shouldn't have to suffer more than is absolutely necessary. But I know what it really means to kill an animal. For many of those theorising vegans, death is simply a theoretical concept.

Not sure if this makes any sense. In any case, I don't see a reason to go against my omnivore nature as a homo sapien. There are times when I really enjoy a vegetarian dish, but not as a matter of principle. You won't talk me out of having a full on steak with all the trimmings once or twice a week.
>> No. 427260 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 6:57 pm
427260 spacer

1423126575579.png
427260427260427260
>>427258

None of what you said means that animals aren't being hurt. Just that you prefer to hurt them yourself for selfish reasons. I'm not a vegan but there is so much vegan hate for them apparently being aloof or smug or evangelical and I've never met a vegan who's like that. It seems really fucking obvious that it's a lot of meat eaters who know they're doing something morally dubious and are shitting on vegans for showing them up by simply not doing it, regardless of what the vegans actually do or say.

I have never seen a vegan being rude to someone else about their choices. I see people being rude about vegans for theirs every day.
>> No. 427263 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 10:08 pm
427263 spacer
Vegans are, after all, people. Some of them are intolerable cunts and some of them are lovely. There's a large dose of confirmation bias at play whichever side you're on there.

Personally, I hate people who always turn up for work early. They don't say anything about it, they don't infringe on my right to show up precisely as the clock hits 9, and I'm doing nothing wrong by doing that. Yet somehow, I still feel like I look bad next to them. I loathe them for it. Can't they just stay the fuck in bed for another half hour like a normal person instead of making me look lazy when I'm doing nothing wrong?

Same deal with vegans.
>> No. 427264 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 10:30 pm
427264 spacer
>>427257
> I'd be fine with vegans, we're it not for the fact you cannot have a balanced diet without protein, and the amino acids which are specifically found in animal meat.

This is not true. Millions of people exist healthily on basically just beans and rice. Theta Grunberg does too and so should you.
>> No. 427265 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 10:44 pm
427265 spacer
>>427264

This is not true, these hypothetical people you speak of almost certainly eat eggs and dairy products at a minimum, as sustainable sources of protein. Free range eggs are not murder, which is where I lose truck with vegans- Vegetarian is a totally different and much less piss boiling thing. I've never heard of anyone hating vegetarians, just specifically vegans.

Then you have the ones who try to feed their dog a meat free diet, completing a circle of mental gymnastics and hypocrisy so intense I need a wank if I think about it for too long.
>> No. 427266 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 11:00 pm
427266 spacer

File
removed
>>427264

Are you trolling or just stupid? Greta looks like a 10 years old at 16, and those people subsisting on rice and beans eat low quality cheese and meats when they can afford it. Even Pajeets drink milk and eat cheese to get proteins and amino acids somehow.
>> No. 427267 Anonymous
31st May 2019
Friday 11:46 pm
427267 spacer
>>427260

One of my friends went vegan to the point they were intolerable to be around. Their Facebook feed was like a zoophile snuff collection awash with a sea of propaganda videos made alfers and peta that just made things up, they built up a cabal of friends who would reinforce the absurdity and cite 'natural news' like it was remotely reliable. Every time I met them felt like an attempt to convert me.

I obviously don't think that is normal and I'm sure there was something else going on that drove them to that (like the way alcoholism can be a symptom of an inability to cope). But my point is is those people do exist and exist at a rate to have personally affected me.

I'm not expecting you to take responsibility for or apologise for them like you were all part of some sort of club. Just acknowledge those people exist.
>> No. 427268 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 12:08 am
427268 spacer
It's only the obnoxious vegans draw attention to themselves. Like kids if you don't personally know any kids.
>> No. 427269 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 12:29 am
427269 spacer
ITT: people being irrationally narky about vegans because they've got fuck all else to do on a Friday night.
>> No. 427270 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 12:31 am
427270 spacer
>>427268

I have the same logic with fishing. Believeing men and women should be treated equally is so ubiquitous in our society that when someone feels the need to identify as one it sends alarm bells ringing.
>> No. 427271 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 12:33 am
427271 spacer
>>427269

I realise you are bitter because you put yourself through a tourturous diet routine, but there's really no reason to take it out on us.
>> No. 427272 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 12:37 am
427272 spacer
>>427265
"Rice and beans" is a bit of a meme, since the people who "choose" that diet (usually) do so for economic reasons who will happily add eggs and chicken to their diet as cheap treats. Adult dogs, funnily enough, can be fed vegan diets if you jump through enough ridiculous hoops; their source material is a scavanger like us humans. We do fine on relatively simple vegan diets once we're adults too, but children really do not (we're mammals, ffs). Feed your cat a vegan diet, though, and you're committing animal abuse worse than what you claim to abhor.
>> No. 427274 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 1:11 am
427274 spacer

410JjW1jIXL.jpg
427274427274427274
You know what gets me bothered? Soylent.
I could be all up on my modernist high horse getting smug about how the obvious solution to ethical and logistical problems around meat eating is scientifically synthesised fancy foods, but the fuckers have gone and ruined it by making meal replacements a gimmicky silicon-valley consumer product. We could've built something out of the Star Trek future if we hadn't decided to abandon that sort of thing 40 years ago, instead we've got this muck. Any future products with better meat replacement criteria are going to be just as unsatisfying. It's not enough to nail the technology, you've got to nail the branding and the culture and we've no hope of doing that.
For all it was supposed to be a bad place, least the future from Soylent Green wasn't as stupid, as disappointing, as anticlimactic as the present.
>> No. 427279 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 7:34 am
427279 spacer
>>427274

I hear you. Same thing with Huel, the British equivalent.

I really like the idea of something I can just chug down when I'm too busy or lazy or depressed to make real food. They could market it honestly in that way and it would be fine.

But instead it's marketed for hipster big city park jogger gym selfie health tosser types, catering fully to that whole smug sense of self-satisfaction and lifestyle egotism.
>> No. 427282 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 7:53 am
427282 spacer
>>427279 Aren't Aldi or some other tier-2 doing a knockoff yet?
Seems inevitable of there's any volume behind it.
Not sure I'd trust random China-sourced stuff on Amazon, though.
>> No. 427285 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 9:40 am
427285 spacer

air-ride-pro-self-balancing-hoverboard-wbackpack-b.jpg
427285427285427285
>>427274

Just like the Hoverboard. That idea has been completely perverted with a shit Chinese cheap plastic contraption which even in a not so strict sense couldn't be further from actually hovering in any way, shape, or form.

There is hope for the Power Loader though, and if done right, this could be a very useful piece of kit both for military and civilian uses -

https://www.google.com/amp/s/entertainment.ie/amp/cinema/movie-news/theres-a-real-life-version-of-the-power-loader-from-aliens-being-developed-235526/
>> No. 427288 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 10:08 am
427288 spacer

MZWwkog.jpg
427288427288427288
>>427284
Cosmo's gender bending is directly caused by speedrunning, not Soylent. Everybody knows this.
>> No. 427294 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 10:40 am
427294 spacer
>>427288

It is rather genuinely fascinating how the speedrunning thing so rapidly transformed into some kind of tranny cult.
>> No. 427298 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 11:16 am
427298 spacer
>>427294

>Young people with gender dysphoria have an elevated rate of Asperger syndrome, according to a new study.

>The researchers report, “Overall, 23.1% of patients (9 of 39) presenting with gender dysphoria had possible, likely, or very likely Asperger syndrome as measured by the Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale (ASDS).”

https://www.autism.org/gender-dysphoria-autism/
>> No. 427299 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 12:18 pm
427299 spacer
>>427279
The marketing's a bit naff but I like Huel for the reason you mention. Can't be arsed making dinner? Huel's even less effort than popping over to the chicken shop. Running late in the morning? Takes less than 2 minutes to make, chug and rinse the shaker.

It's half way between perfume and cola ads. Be an aspirational paragliding trendy tech speed boating musically gorucking coifed beard sporting endurance influencer, all because of Huel! Load of tosh.
>> No. 427303 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 2:28 pm
427303 spacer
>>427299
What's wrong with a quick beans on toast? Or egg on toast? Or bacon sarnie. Fucking millenioomers.
>> No. 427306 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 6:26 pm
427306 spacer
>>427303

They all take many, many, many times longer than whacking some powder in a tub of water and shaking it up, and are vastly less healthy. Pretty fucking simple m62

And that's before you even consider the washing up you have to do after a conventional meal, no matter how simple.
>> No. 427307 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 6:46 pm
427307 spacer
>>427306
Yeah but you have to drink some cold bollocks. Sounds quite disheartening.
>> No. 427322 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 9:26 pm
427322 spacer
>>427307
Use warm water.
>> No. 427323 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 9:35 pm
427323 spacer
>>427322
So you have to boil a kettle now too? Wasting valuable minutes.
>> No. 427324 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 9:38 pm
427324 spacer
>>427323
Warm water, not boiling. Just use the hot tap.
>> No. 427325 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 9:41 pm
427325 spacer
>>427324
I'm not a total skank.
>> No. 427329 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 10:34 pm
427329 spacer
>>427324 Is piss about the right temperature? I have an optimisation you might like to try. Should save another minute or so.
>> No. 427330 Anonymous
1st June 2019
Saturday 10:35 pm
427330 spacer
>>427323
Save the planet, never use your kettle.
>> No. 427332 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 9:56 am
427332 spacer
>>427330
How will I make tea?
>> No. 427333 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 10:06 am
427333 spacer
>>427332
Lad, I think we can drop the pretence that we like and regularly drink tea when the fate of much of our habitat is at stake. There are probably no Americans left here to see the charade anyway.
>> No. 427334 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 10:27 am
427334 spacer
>>427333
Well is it OK to use the hot tap? That will taste just as good right?
>> No. 427339 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 2:14 pm
427339 spacer

s-l640.png
427339427339427339
>>427334

Optimal water temperature for tea brewing is 98°C. That's why the tea connaisseur will wait a few moments before pouring the hot water into the tea cup.

The heat contained in piss is also not from a green source, because it comes from your metabolism, which is fuelled by you eating meat and other things that consume and waste natural resources.

At least in mid-summer, you might try one of those solar water heater bags that camping shops sell. The catch is that they only heat water up to around 45°C, which means the inside of it will quickly become a complete germ farm unless you add water disinfectant, but which will then ruin the taste. Your water will probably have a strong PVC taste anyway coming from a bag like that.
>> No. 427340 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 2:32 pm
427340 spacer
>>427339
>The heat contained in piss is also not from a green source, because it comes from your metabolism, which is fuelled by you eating meat and other things that consume and waste natural resources.
By that logic, neither is most other renewable energy, since they require significant resource extraction to construct.
>> No. 427341 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 2:34 pm
427341 spacer
>>427339
I like that you didn't even bother to try and spell connoisseur properly. If anyone says they know how to spell it off the top of their head they are lying.
>> No. 427343 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 2:36 pm
427343 spacer
>>427341

Right. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
>> No. 427347 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 3:06 pm
427347 spacer
>>427341
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/connaisseur
>> No. 427348 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 3:16 pm
427348 spacer
>>427339
Can I use my piss if I scavenge for nuts and grains in an ecofriendly manner?
>> No. 427356 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 5:10 pm
427356 spacer
>>427343
I'm not attacking him you moron.

>>427347
Oops. Never mind then.
>> No. 427358 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 5:48 pm
427358 spacer
>>427356

If my school French is anything to go by, then it comes from connaître, and thus any words derived from it should keep the word stem as it is in the verb form.
>> No. 427364 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 9:28 pm
427364 spacer
>>427358
It wasn't spelt like that in French when it made the jump to English.
>> No. 427366 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 10:22 pm
427366 spacer

AN344-Spelt-Grain-Flour-732x549-thumb.jpg
427366427366427366
>>427364

>spelt
>> No. 427367 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 10:42 pm
427367 spacer

amaranth-on-spoon-1296x728.jpg
427367427367427367
>>427366

>amaranth
>> No. 427369 Anonymous
2nd June 2019
Sunday 11:52 pm
427369 spacer

Greek-Einkorn-Salad-grains-2.jpg
427369427369427369
>>427367

Wheat best be moving on now.
>> No. 427372 Anonymous
3rd June 2019
Monday 3:32 am
427372 spacer
>>427364
It's been that way in French since Napoleon. Do keep up, Jacob.
>> No. 427392 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 12:21 am
427392 spacer
>Last October, Motherboard reported on scientific evidence that the UN’s summary report for government policymakers on climate change—whose findings were widely recognized as “devastating”—were in fact too optimistic.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050


https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/society/in-the-last-three-months-alone-pesticides-have-killed-some-500-million-bees-in-brazil/

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/11/21/not-just-bees-trees-dying-off-alarming-rate-little-public-attention
>> No. 427393 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 3:44 am
427393 spacer
>>427392
But Earth will have to give us an extension, because it needs is more than we need it.
>> No. 427395 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 10:48 am
427395 spacer
>>427392

Thirty years to go then.

Who wants to live forever.
>> No. 427396 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:08 am
427396 spacer
>>427395
We're not totally doomed, we just have to get our act together. That includes people who mean well but feel it's hopeless getting involved.
>> No. 427398 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:25 am
427398 spacer
>>427396

"Getting our act together" would essentially mean reverting to a lifestyle of the 1700s or perhaps even earlier.

Our lifestyle is fine. There's just too many people in the world living that lifestyle. We need to go back to having fewer people.
>> No. 427400 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:30 am
427400 spacer
>>427398
Thanks Malthus but no. Our lifestyle in the west has a carbon footprint many times larger than that of places with lots of people. Regardless, saying we have to go back to the 1700s is absurd.
>> No. 427401 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:34 am
427401 spacer
>>427400

>Regardless, saying we have to go back to the 1700s is absurd.

No, it isn't. If we want to really stop, or slow down considerably global warming, that's about what we will be looking at.
>> No. 427402 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:39 am
427402 spacer
>>427401
Eating less meat and not using personal cars isn't quite the same as the visions of Restoration England healthcare and living in turf housing that saying "We have to go back to the 1700s" conjures.
>> No. 427403 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:47 am
427403 spacer
>>427401
Given all the problems technological advancement has solved arguing the absurdist position that we ought to go back to living in the woods and being scared of goats is just stupid. But it seems like you're only doing this in order to paint climate change activists as naive for thinking otherwise, or as bonkers luddites who'd tear up civilisation as we know it, root and stem. Neither of these points rings particularly true.
>> No. 427404 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:48 am
427404 spacer
>>427402

>not using personal cars

Not likely though, is it.
>> No. 427405 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:49 am
427405 spacer
>>427404

Do you have anything other than defeatism to contribute?
>> No. 427414 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 2:18 pm
427414 spacer
>>427405

I'm not saying the idea is wrong. Just that I don't believe you can persuade enough people worldwide to stop using their cars.

A number of people certainly will if you ask them to, but unless you pass quite far-reaching laws globally, it's not goong to have a big effect.

You may say that banning CFCs from spray cans and fridges was a global success, and it was. But the difference was that it didn't require any behaviour changes at the end consumer level. Spray cans still exist same as refrigerators, only the technology inside them has changed. But switching to mass transportation and leaving the convenience of personal mobility behind is a whole different matter.
>> No. 427415 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 2:28 pm
427415 spacer
>>427403

Obvious example - smartphones. A smartphone is an incredibly useful device, but owning and using one for two years only produces about 60kg of CO2, which is about the same as half a tank of petrol. Given the choice, I know which I'd rather have.

Ground source heat pumps are the latest in sustainable heating technology. They work like a fridge in reverse, pumping heat out of the ground and into your house. Because they move heat rather than generate it, they have a typical efficiency of about 450% - for every kWh of electricity you feed in, you get 4.5kWh of heat in your house. You can run them off solar or wind power, so you can have a toasty warm house with zero net carbon emissions.

The idea of becoming sustainable by going backwards in time is simply nonsense. In some respects, we'll just have to put up with having less - there's no plausible way of running a jumbo jet on batteries right now, so we'll probably have to give up cheap foreign holidays and out-of-season fruit flown in from Kenya. In most cases though, we just need to be smarter about how we consume energy. We know how to make zero-carbon electricity at scale, we're well on target to getting our electricity grid down to zero carbon, so the question now is how to make everything electrically powered.
>> No. 427416 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 2:35 pm
427416 spacer
>>427414
>unless you pass quite far-reaching laws globally, it's not goong to have a big effect.
There's an obvious answer to this.
>But switching to mass transportation and leaving the convenience of personal mobility behind is a whole different matter.
Criminalising slavery inconvenienced a lot of people too.
>> No. 427417 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 2:40 pm
427417 spacer
>>427415 how to make everything electrically powered
I've been pondering this recently - it feels absurd to run an electrically heated hot water tank and then piss away a load of that energy pushing hot water through pipes to taps, leaving hot water in the pipes to cool, once you're done.
Electric hot tap boilers are shit, though. Bulky, obtrusive and not powerful enough. Surely they're not the future? Spent some time last week doing some maths and engineering, trying to come up with a less crappy solution. Seems to me that there'll be a bit of a market for such a thing in this brave new all electric world.
Or maybe we'll have solar heated hot water, and just top the tanks up with electricity when needed. Need quite big tanks for the required water & insulation, though, tricky to retrofit.
Tiny bore, heavily insulated hot water pipes? Just accept that the flow rate will be low - who needs lots of hot water in a hurry anyway?
>> No. 427419 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 2:47 pm
427419 spacer
>>427416

>Criminalising slavery inconvenienced a lot of people too.

So did the abolition of the death penalty.

While we're making unrelatable statements.

But for argument's sake, ending slavery inconvenienced only a small land owning elite particularly in the southern U.S.. And it increased the personal freedom of millions of freed slaves. Banning personal cars would have a much more profound and limiting effect on personal freedoms and everyday life as we know it.
>> No. 427423 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 3:16 pm
427423 spacer
>>427415

>Given the choice, I know which I'd rather have.

I'm presuming you mean you'd rather have the smartphone than your car, but I have to say the smartphone is a luxury I can very easily do without; without a method of personal transportation however my quality of life would be drastically worse.
>> No. 427424 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 3:16 pm
427424 spacer
>>427419
>Banning personal cars would have a much more profound and limiting effect on personal freedoms and everyday life as we know it.
Not doing it is going to have a much bigger effect on everything.
Again, do you have anything other than defeatism to contribute? I don't understand how you manage to make posts without giving up before you start typing.
>> No. 427428 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 3:39 pm
427428 spacer
>>427424

>I don't understand how you manage to make posts without giving up before you start typing.


I could tell you, but oh what's the point.

I'll get my coat.

Seriously though, I didn't mean to be a defeatist obtuse cunt here, I just wanted to point out that it's going to be very difficult to get a large enough number of people of the global population to give up certain habits and conveniences that they have grown accustomed to.

I personally find the idea fascinating to live in a zero-emission world someday, and it's a worthwhile goal to have for humanity as a whole.

I just doubt that we will get there in time. Humans tend to be fairly good at making responsible decisions on a personal level or a level concerning your kin or your clan or tribe, but we appear to be shit at making uniform behaviour changes on the scale of billions of people. Possibly because through much of our evolutionary history as a species, we lived in small tribes that did not require us to solve problems that affected our entire species as a whole. Having to juggle a dying planet and the interests of over seven billion people living on it just wasn't something cavemen had to spend much time pondering.
>> No. 427430 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 3:44 pm
427430 spacer
>>427428

Nobody's saying it'll be easy but it's really not helped by people whose first response when it's mentioned is to talk it down. I hope you'll consider the pragmatism of what you're saying next time.
>> No. 427431 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 3:47 pm
427431 spacer
>>427430

Noted.

And count me in whenever there are sensible efforts to actually make a difference and an impact. But that said, deep down, I just can't shake off my general pessimism about people in this world, I'm sorry.
>> No. 427433 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 4:16 pm
427433 spacer
>>427428

I think that the smoking ban provides a really useful example. Ireland was the first country in the world to impose an outright ban on smoking in workplaces and at the time, a lot of people thought it was a fool's errand. There were just too many smokers, too many rural pubs where nobody's going to give a fuck, not enough Gardai to enforce it. What nobody predicted was that there was a pent-up frustration with smoking and an eagerness to publicly shame anyone who flouted the ban; the authorities didn't need to do much in the way of enforcement, because shame was perfectly sufficient. Once Ireland had proved that it could be done, there was a domino effect of other countries following suit.

You could make a similar case about drink-driving over a longer timescale. Back in the 60s, it was perfectly acceptable to drive home after a night at the pub. By the early 70s, the authorities were encouraging people not to get completely pissed, but you'd still get a fair bit of sympathy if you got caught by the breathalyser. By the 90s, it became utterly shameful and only the most degenerate of piss-artists would admit to it.

I think it's entirely plausible that there could be a tipping point in public attitudes to climate change within the next couple of decades. As electric cars start to take off, owning a petrol car might become as unacceptable as sparking up a fag in a soft play centre. We might see posh people giving up flying in such numbers that foreign holidays become as deeply unfashionable as a week in Blackpool is now. We might see vegetarianism and veganism become the norm amongst young people, to the extent that all meat becomes as weirdly old-fashioned as tripe or liver and cheese becomes as chavvy as a turkey twizzler.

Pushing though a massive package of unpopular legislation is fairly improbable, but I think we underestimate the significance of fashions and social trends. I remember seeing newspaper articles in the mid-90s about this new thing called "internet dating", implicitly mocking these repulsive weirdos who couldn't meet anyone in real life. Now I see newspaper articles about how it's too hard to meet anyone in real life any more, because everyone is on Tinder and it's just weird to chat up a stranger in a bar. Society can change in radical ways without anyone really noticing.
>> No. 427434 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 4:23 pm
427434 spacer
>>427433
Sorted then.
>> No. 427435 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 4:44 pm
427435 spacer
>>427433

> I remember seeing newspaper articles in the mid-90s about this new thing called "internet dating", implicitly mocking these repulsive weirdos who couldn't meet anyone in real life.


One of my English teachers in school, before the Internet, was the classic case of a lonely heart bookworm. Personality wise the nicest and most caring (early middle aged) woman you could meet, but always had an air about her that she had missed the boat and that English literature was her place of solace. It then transpired at some point that she had put an ad in the paper looking for a romantic partner and husband. And some very rude lads then started making jokes about her. Myself not included, if you must ask.

Anyway, you're right in that social attitudes, not just in that respect, can change drastically within the space of a few decades. Finding a partner by any other means than socialising among your friends used to be seen as kind of dodgy and always made you look like a bit of a sad case. And now, as you said, look at things like Tinder or match.com.
>> No. 427437 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 5:53 pm
427437 spacer
>>427433

>owning a petrol car might become as unacceptable as sparking up a fag in a soft play centre

More like it will end up a burden on poor people who can only afford to buy a fifteen year old Astra for the school run, and have to pay excessive tax on top of it.

>We might see posh people giving up flying in such numbers that foreign holidays become as deeply unfashionable as a week in Blackpool is now.

More like us plebs will be forced to stay at home in the drizzle while only the genuinely rich get to go abroad, like the old days.

>We might see vegetarianism and veganism become the norm amongst young people, to the extent that all meat becomes as weirdly old-fashioned as tripe or liver and cheese becomes as chavvy as a turkey twizzler.

More like meat and cheese will become an expensive luxury chavs never get to eat.

I admire your optimism but I don't see these things happening as a conscious choice; and even if they do, the knock on economic effects will be to push those things out of the reach of ordinary folk. I feel like, as with a lot of things, it's all very well for your metropolitan hipster types to get behind it; but when Sandra from Scunthorpe works full time and has to feed her family of five on an Iceland budget, I doubt she has the realistic economic and time freedom to buy a load of veg and cook from fresh every single day, or get trendy free range organic foods that cost twice as much as their counterparts.

I'm not saying we shouldn't address these things, but I'm saying we need to do a lot of groundwork to make it possible and, well, desirable, instead of just shaming people for eating meat or having their own car and hoping peer pressure does the job. As it stands, just being able to care about climate change is a very middle class luxury.
>> No. 427438 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 5:55 pm
427438 spacer
>>427437
You can get cheap frozen veggie burgers, cheaper than getting chicken burgers or beef burgers. Veggie burgers and chips and beans - a meal that you could have for a pittance with minimal effort. Sandra could do well on a meat free diet.
>> No. 427439 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 5:59 pm
427439 spacer
>>427438

And her kids would grow up with nutritional deficiences we had thought eradicated in Victorian times.
>> No. 427440 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 6:07 pm
427440 spacer
>>427438
Thank-you, Mister Rees-Mogg.
>> No. 427441 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 6:33 pm
427441 spacer
>>427439

Just removing meat would be a big improvement in the British diet. We eat far more protein than we need, far too many calories and not enough vegetables. White bread and shit breakfast cereals are fortified with iron and B vitamins, so you don't need meat for that.

>>427437

>More like it will end up a burden on poor people who can only afford to buy a fifteen year old Astra for the school run, and have to pay excessive tax on top of it.

We're remarkably close to the point where leasing an electric car will be cheaper than owning a petrol car. It's already cheaper than buying new, but battery prices are falling rapidly. Electric cars have a phenomenally long working life because they have so few moving parts; the only routine maintenance they require is tyres and brake pads. Electricity is obviously much cheaper than petrol. By 2030, it's highly likely that every lamppost will have a built-in charging point and the cheap runabout of choice will be a tatty old Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe.

I feel obliged to point out that hardly anyone actually needs a car for the school run - kids are perfectly capable of walking to school from a very young age, especially if the school operates a walking bus scheme. An old mountain bike or an electric moped is by far the cheapest way of getting to work.

>Sandra from Scunthorpe works full time and has to feed her family of five on an Iceland budget

I don't know when you last set foot in an Iceland, but I shop there regularly because they've got a brilliant own-brand vegan range. Maybe Sandra from Scunthorpe can just shop in a slightly different bit of Iceland? If she walks about eight feet from the turkey twizzlers, she'll find zesty bean quinoa and vegan chorizo slices.
>> No. 427442 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 6:46 pm
427442 spacer
>>427441 the only routine maintenance they require is tyres and brake pads

and battery packs. If electric cars are the runabout of the poor, they'll be eking out the last years of a failing battery they can't afford to replace. People will be stripping battery packs and combining the most-working cells into new packs, then trying to defeat whatever DRM-style protection the manufacturers have added.

Electricity is cheaper than fossil at the moment, but that's a bribe / oversight to drive uptake and give cheap motoring to the rich. As soon as it's mainstream, there'll be taxes, got to replace VED somehow. Probably charge by the mile or something, since it'll be tricky to police 'red electricity'.

(I've just ordered a leased e-golf, for reasons. There no way in hell I'd have bought one. Tables I was looking at suggested 25% residual value after 4 years. That's a bit grim for a £37K car. )
>> No. 427443 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 7:04 pm
427443 spacer
>>427437

>More like it will end up a burden on poor people who can only afford to buy a fifteen year old Astra for the school run, and have to pay excessive tax on top of it.

Much like smokers today. Poor people smoke in greater numbers than any other segment of the population. And yet, nobody would say that we need tobacco tax cuts for the poor.

Owning certain petrol cars will be a mark of wealth though. Anything with petrol that's got good potential as a collectible. Not everybody is going to have their E Type converted into an electric, like the one Harry drove off in on his wedding day. There will be those that will be willing and able to afford petrol prices four times higher than we have today.
>> No. 427444 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 7:11 pm
427444 spacer
>>427441

>I feel obliged to point out that hardly anyone actually needs a car for the school run - kids are perfectly capable of walking to school from a very young age, especially if the school operates a walking bus scheme.

This is still the norm in almost every country in mainland Europe that I have been to. In Italy, the Netherlands and Germany and other places, you see droves of schoolchildren, many of them younger than age ten, use public buses both in the morning and in the afternoon to get to school and back. Completely without parent supervision. I think I read something a while ago that the German Ministry of Transport even recommends that parents stop school runs altogether because they feel that children need to learn how to behave safely in traffic on their own.

The mind boggles.
>> No. 427445 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 7:32 pm
427445 spacer
>>427441

>I feel obliged to point out that hardly anyone actually needs a car for the school run - kids are perfectly capable of walking to school from a very young age, especially if the school operates a walking bus scheme. An old mountain bike or an electric moped is by far the cheapest way of getting to work.

Have you tried looking at the house prices anywhere near a school?

You're showing the kind of well intentioned middle class oversight that always fucks poor families over. Life is already hard when you're scraping to make ends meet, and you're dumping the majority of the burden on them without offering any real benefit.

When you're comfortable enough in life that you can do this sort of stuff as a little feel-good vanity project, it's a very different matter than having to because you can't afford to live the way you used to any more. That's just a kick in the teeth.
>> No. 427446 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 7:43 pm
427446 spacer
>>427445
You're right in principle, of course, but this same argument was used against recycling itself within relatively recent living memory.
>> No. 427447 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 7:45 pm
427447 spacer
>>427446
recycling (some things) is still a bloody awful idea. I wish people would stop fetishising it and proposing it as a solution to the world's ills.
>> No. 427448 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 7:56 pm
427448 spacer
>>427445
>Have you tried looking at the house prices anywhere near a school?
I live on a council estate and there are three or four schools almost in sight of each other. There are also buses.
>> No. 427449 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 8:02 pm
427449 spacer
>>427448

>I live on a council estate

That doesn't mean very much these days. The property market has gone utterly daft, even in the fabled North, where southerners would like to believe the streets are paved with affordable housing.

I would suggest that fixing that first would give poor people the economic freedom to live a more environmentally conscious lifestyle. When we've got that sorted we can maybe even take a look at period poverty.
>> No. 427450 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 8:16 pm
427450 spacer
>>427445

The houses near the schools round my way are as cheap as anywhere else, because the schools are shit. If you have kids and any amount of money, you do whatever it takes to get a house about six miles that way -> to get into the catchment area of the only non-shit school in the borough, which is massively over-subscribed.

Being poor is shit. Treating poor people like helpless waifs just adds to that shitness. Saying we should do nothing about climate change because poor people will bear the brunt is a double cop-out. It absolves you of responsibility for doing anything about climate change and it absolves you of responsibility for doing anything about poverty. It also strongly implies that poor people are too thick or too self-absorbed to give a shit about an existential threat to the human species, which is just bollocks.
>> No. 427451 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 10:24 pm
427451 spacer
>>427450

>It also strongly implies that poor people are too thick or too self-absorbed to give a shit about an existential threat to the human species, which is just bollocks.


They're not too thick or too self absorbed, they're simply too fucking skint.

Driving a 20-year-old run-down Vauxhall is still cheaper per month than bus passes for four people. If you're among the working poor, you get no bus pass discounts in the first place.

Short of just walking everywhere on foot or taking a bicycle, a conscious decision to reduce your carbon footprint is still often more expensive than what you are used to doing.

Also though, when you're really skint or working poor, the environment simply isn't on top of your priorities list. You worry about paying your rent and what sudden unforeseen expense could break your back that month.
>> No. 427452 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 10:38 pm
427452 spacer
>>427451
This condescending "oi, you can't appreciate how expensive it is to [do something about the environment]" bollocks is very tiresome.
>> No. 427453 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 10:56 pm
427453 spacer
>>427452

I don't think it's condescending, it's just true. Poor people don't have money and quite often (if they have families) don't have time, either. We can all put paper and cans in the right bin, but as said, sometimes a car is cheaper than public transport options, or more viable (lots of people do shift work when buses simply don't run) and not everyone has the time or money to seek alternative, environmentally friendly options.

I grew up poor, and suggesting that my mother do something like stop buying frozen food from Iceland because it's got a big carbon footprint would have been suggesting she stopped feeding her kids. If she'd not had a car, she couldn't have gone to work either. I'm sure she could have cycled there, but then all you're doing is wondering why exhausted single mothers who work two jobs are too lazy to give up the car.

When you're the working poor, there's a lot of things we treat as luxuries that are actually necessities, or perhaps the only luxury in their lives - but we've had the Big Telly discussion before.

Expecting the poor end of the world to be as conscious of the environment as a middle class person (or the fucking government) is insultingly stupid.
>> No. 427455 Anonymous
4th June 2019
Tuesday 11:16 pm
427455 spacer
>>427453

Thank you for validating my point. I don't understand how it is condescending to say poor people are too poor to save the environment. If you gave most of them a proper middle class existence and income, I'm pretty sure they would become just as environmentally conscious as the next person. But when you have to raise two kids on £1,500 a month, you will be occupied with much more immediate problems than the question whether your kids will have to grapple with three degrees global warming when they grow up.
>> No. 427456 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 12:52 am
427456 spacer
>>427453

This whole conversation has become distorted beyond reason. We started off on "we'll probably see big changes in environmental behaviour due to changing social attitudes rather than big policy changes", were rapidly derailed to "that's not going to happen, we'll just end up hiking the prices of everything and the poor will get battered" and now we're on a complete non-sequitur about fucking frozen food.

Nobody is saying that people should stop buying frozen food from Iceland. Someone suggested that poor people can't afford to be vegetarian because they're shopping on an Iceland budget, I said that Iceland actually have a very good vegan range (and strongly implied that the original commenter is talking out of his arse and is just being condescending) and now we're basically debating whether the liberal elite are trying to ban Kerry Katona.

Honestly, I don't mean to be a grumpy twat, but could everyone just go and read David MacKay's Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air? The vast majority of comments in this thread involve at least one serious misapprehension about sustainable energy and what we need to do to achieve it. Poor people already lead relatively green lifestyles because they consume less. The things that are going to make their lifestyles greener over the next few decades are mainly technological advances and will mainly save them money.

Nobody is suggesting that poor people should bear the brunt of decarbonisation. There's a strong correlation between income and CO2 emissions on both a national and global level. The stuff that posh people do to show off their environmental credentials is almost universally tokenistic bollocks; the stuff that they should be doing right now is mostly stuff that poor people already do because they're skint - live in the smallest house you can, drive as little as possible, don't fly, turn down your central heating, don't buy loads of stuff. If you're genuinely on the bones of your arse, you're pretty much off the hook.

There's some stuff that's environmentally beneficial but currently very expensive (switch to an electric car, get solar panels installed, get a GSHP), but it's getting cheaper very quickly and will become cheaper than the status quo within a decade or two. As it happens, council and housing association tenants are disproportionately likely to live in a home with rooftop solar panels and/or a GSHP, because social landlords have a lot of modern housing stock and it makes economic sense for them to make those kinds of long-term investments.

https://www.withouthotair.com/
>> No. 427457 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 2:45 am
427457 spacer
>>427456

Thank you.
I'd still argue that systemic, top-down change, particularly against things like the aviation and non-renewable fuel industries are more important than any of the things individuals can do.
>> No. 427458 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 3:01 am
427458 spacer
We put so much value on 'making an effort' to save the environment. What we really need is enforced social changes that make saving the environment the path of least resistance. It doesn't really matter if it hurts or not to make those changes, so long as the path of least resistance is to take the pain from doing so.

>>427433
The thing about drink driving and smoking was that the government cracked down on it first, then it became unfashionable. That isn't yet the case for flights or meat eating yet. Culture is generally downstream from economics. That's especially clear in the case of online dating. I wouldn't be so optimistic unless you can get some kind of cascading effect where a change in elite culture leads to a change in legislation, which changes the economics that govern wider society.

>>427447
It has always amused me that the waste management mantra is 'reduce, reuse, recycle' but the only thing that really captures the public imagination is recycling - all of the disposable consumption with none of the guilt.
>> No. 427459 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 7:01 am
427459 spacer

3y0WxGh.jpg
427459427459427459
>>427456
>I said that Iceland actually have a very good vegan range

£2 for two burgers. £2 for eight sausages. £2 for a pack of meatballs. £3.50 for a pack of chicken strips. £3.50 for their mince.

What kind of money do you think paupers have to spend on food? It's not that fucking much. Your middle class is showing.
>> No. 427460 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 7:18 am
427460 spacer
>>427450

>Saying we should do nothing about climate change because poor people will bear the brunt is a double cop-out.

It's a good job I never said anything remotely like that then, in't it mate?

What I did say is that there are a lot of things you aren't considering, because evidently you come from a background where those things are not immediately obvious to you. I don't hold that against you, even as a staunch socialist. I'm just pointing out that it's not as simple as you would like to think.

I said we do have to do something about this, but we first have to make it easier, more affordable, and less hassle for people who are already stretched thin and overworked.
>> No. 427461 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 8:43 am
427461 spacer
Am I being wildly optimistic, or are there going to be a shitload of jobs created by increasing energy costs?
Insulating homes is a biggie - has most of the easy stuff (actually filling in cavities and loft voids) been done yet? I know there have been bribes available to encourage it. There has to be a lot of housing stock where insulation is going to need to be internal or external cladding (and its replacement when it turns out to be appallingly flammable). Converting houses to electric heat and ditching the gas heating will be a vast amount of work, that doesn't look very automatable. Hell, even knocking down and rebuilding becomes possible if energy prices get really out of hand.
Also installation and maintenance of renewables - looks like a lot more labour required than maintaining the existing herd of fossil burners. All that polishing solar panels and replacing turbines every few years.
All this will get put on the price of energy, I'd imagine - but it looks like quite a few jobs for variously skilled people (and managers to fuck it up, of course).
>> No. 427462 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 8:46 am
427462 spacer
>>427461
As well as the energy side, if we're going to get serious about reducing waste, there's going to be a need for more hands & brains fiddling with the waste stream, sorting, binning and burning.
That strikes me as more likely to be replaced by automation in the short-mid term, though.
>> No. 427463 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 9:23 am
427463 spacer
>>427461
You're not wrong. This has been the case in places already making the switch.
>> No. 427464 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 9:33 am
427464 spacer
>>427461
What about the jobs lost if we can't compete with other countries where energy is cheaper?
>> No. 427465 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 9:43 am
427465 spacer
>>427464
That assumes that energy becomes more expensive due to tax, rather than oil price climbing (and everything else following).
Although it doesn't look like oil's going to climb enough to force all this, so it'd have to be taxes. Hmm.
What percentage of jobs depend heavily on energy input? If energy is cheap elsewhere, then I guess we'll buy it by proxy - fertilisers, half-finished goods and overseas cloud services? Keep doing stuff locally that makes sense.
>> No. 427466 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 9:45 am
427466 spacer
>>427464

We'll just have to make sure our local stuff is higher quality, purer, refined and craft made. It's fairly impractical to transport a lot of stored renewable energy long distances, iirc
>> No. 427467 Anonymous
5th June 2019
Wednesday 11:21 am
427467 spacer
>>427465

>That assumes that energy becomes more expensive due to tax, rather than oil price climbing (and everything else following).

Around eighty percent of the price fluctuation of things like crude oil or gas is due to speculation on global commodity markets. It makes oil go up or down in price based on political events and algorithmic trading computers. The spike in petrol prices that we have seen in recent weeks was mainly caused by such things as the political turmoil and uncertainty in Venezuela or Iran, and not by oscillations in supply and demand, although demand for petrol does increase traditionally during the warmer months of the Northern Hemisphere. Other fossil energy carriers undergo similar fluctuations, such as natural gas or coal.

To effectively control the price and the consumption of fossil energy sources, you would probably have to fix global market prices for them. But you might open a whole new can of worms with that and upset delicate balances of supply and demand. After all, we are not yet in a position where we can just stop using fossil fuels literally from one day to the next.

For the time being, it's probably still better to increase taxes on things like petrol or natural gas and subsidise renewable energy with the revenues. This makes alternatives more attractive, and is also an incentive to push the technology needed to create and deliver renewable energy.
>> No. 427568 Anonymous
11th June 2019
Tuesday 10:48 pm
427568 spacer
The protest about BP sponsorship of the Royal Opera screenings today was pretty funny. There was some guy introducing it live in Trafalgar Square with the intent of showing the excited crowd, but there were more protesters than actual audience for the thing. They had to keep adjusting the camera angle to try and crop out the protesters behind him but that wasn't possible so they just zoomed further and further in to his face.
>> No. 427575 Anonymous
12th June 2019
Wednesday 10:13 pm
427575 spacer

62539771_319822048957016_1499419142262882304_n.jpg
427575427575427575
Here's a photo that's surfaced of >>427568 but the whole thing's been a bit eclipsed by Radiohead releasing their hacked tape and donating the proceeds to XR.
>> No. 427576 Anonymous
12th June 2019
Wednesday 10:35 pm
427576 spacer
>>427568

>The protest about BP sponsorship of the Royal Opera screenings today was pretty funny.

Ah, mirth. Knee jerking millennials at it again.
>> No. 427585 Anonymous
13th June 2019
Thursday 9:59 am
427585 spacer

D8zfa3eWkAAZOhv.jpg
427585427585427585
>>427576
What?
>> No. 427587 Anonymous
13th June 2019
Thursday 4:07 pm
427587 spacer
>>427576
Yeah, I mean, what the hell does boypussy have to do with climate change? Let them celebrate Pride in peace for Goodness sake.
>> No. 427590 Anonymous
13th June 2019
Thursday 11:59 pm
427590 spacer
>>427587

Doesn't BP stand for British Pederasts?




I'll get my coat.
>> No. 427617 Anonymous
15th June 2019
Saturday 4:43 pm
427617 spacer
>>427585
It's more like 5 years now though. We're fucked, lads.
>> No. 427623 Anonymous
15th June 2019
Saturday 6:32 pm
427623 spacer
>It's more like 5 years now though. We're fucked, lads.

Yeah but at least it is different and isn't boring. I'd vote for climate change, Trump and Brexit.
>> No. 427624 Anonymous
15th June 2019
Saturday 7:55 pm
427624 spacer
>>427617

Depends whose estimation you believe. But don't worry! Theresa May's promised the Tories will save us by 2050, only twenty-five years too late.
>> No. 427625 Anonymous
15th June 2019
Saturday 8:40 pm
427625 spacer
>>427617

>It's more like 5 years now though. We're fucked, lads.

Five years, shmive years. I don't think you can honestly look at the state that the world around us is in today and come to the conclusion that we're not utterly massively fucked already. All we can do at this point is damage control.
>> No. 427720 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 2:56 pm
427720 spacer
Five days of protests ongoing in Edinburgh.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/extinction-rebellion-edinburgh-protests-live-16442106

Mixed British and French protesters making themselves heard at the Cannes Lion Awards Festival today (too recent to be in the news). "The police came to us and told us there had never been a successful protest in sight of the festival before and they weren't going to allow one today" (paraphrased).
https://www.facebook.com/ExtinctionRebellion/videos/2345673482370125/
https://www.facebook.com/ExtinctionRebellion/videos/474094290054999/

Greenpeace still blocking BP's latest rig from reaching the drilling grounds, ten days in. "The stand-off between the two organisations is understood to have already cost BP more than £1.5 million."
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1776959/bp-greenpeace/

Swarm roadblocks planned in Camden for later this afternoon.
http://camdennewjournal.com/article/extinction-rebellion-to-shut-down-camden-town

Large action planned at the Natural History Museum's annual awards dinner for the Petroleum Group of the Geological Society tomorrow afternoon.
https://rebellion.earth/2019/06/18/18-june-extinction-rebellion-meet-with-natural-history-museum-ahead-of-action/
>> No. 427721 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 3:57 pm
427721 spacer
Here's the top five Tories explaining to a child why they don't care enough about her future to bother doing anything meaningful about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00067qs/our-next-prime-minister
Skip to 50 minutes in.
>> No. 427722 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 4:29 pm
427722 spacer
>>427721
>Here's the top five Tories explaining to a child why they don't care enough about her future to bother doing anything meaningful about it

Have you considered journalism as a profession? You have a knack for manipulative phrasing.
>> No. 427723 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 5:12 pm
427723 spacer
>>427722
I'd just listened to five Tories speak for ten minutes so I was picking up their speech patterns. Needless to say none of them answer her questions. Your bloke Rory in particular either didn't listen to what she said or deliberately misheard her.
>> No. 427727 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 5:50 pm
427727 spacer
>>427723
Message received, Tories hate children and don't care about their future. Gotcha Corbs.
>> No. 427728 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 5:52 pm
427728 spacer
>>427727
>Tories hate children and don't care about their future
Not an entirely unfair characterisation of their actual position.
>> No. 427729 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 5:53 pm
427729 spacer
>>427727
Corbyn hasn't committed to meaningful change yet either so if you're going to be black and white you'd be better off pretending I'm just against old white men. Picture my hypothetically colourful hair and facial piercings.
>> No. 427730 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 6:22 pm
427730 spacer
>>427729
I stand corrected: no politicians care about the future of children in the slightest except the ones you and your chums personally approve of. Best of luck on Fleet Street m8.
>> No. 427731 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 6:50 pm
427731 spacer
>>427730
Best get yourself to A&E for an emergency stickupthearsectomy.
>> No. 427733 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 8:33 pm
427733 spacer
>>427730
... yes, if we're judging them by their actions then that would be a fair conclusion.
>> No. 427746 Anonymous
19th June 2019
Wednesday 11:12 pm
427746 spacer

4yDPQrL.gif
427746427746427746
>>427730
>>427731
>>427733
>> No. 427752 Anonymous
20th June 2019
Thursday 12:15 am
427752 spacer
>>427746
It has occured to me lately that this place is basically Twitter for the chronically pretentious, but do me a favour and maintain the pretense, would you?
>> No. 427755 Anonymous
20th June 2019
Thursday 11:56 am
427755 spacer
>>427752

no worries m4t.
>> No. 427756 Anonymous
20th June 2019
Thursday 12:03 pm
427756 spacer
>>427752

How do I retweet on here?
>> No. 427757 Anonymous
20th June 2019
Thursday 12:06 pm
427757 spacer
>>427746
You're not coming off very well here.
>> No. 427779 Anonymous
20th June 2019
Thursday 11:37 pm
427779 spacer
Conservative MP Mark Field assaulted a Greenpeace activist today. Grabbed her by the throat as she was walking calmly past him. What a lovely man. Whatshisface got 150 hours unpaid work for throwing a milkshake at saville. What do you think Mark Field will get for this assault?
>> No. 427781 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 12:01 am
427781 spacer
Oh and the government is trying to pretend it's doing the citizen's assembly thing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48706352
but isn't really
https://rebellion.earth/2019/06/20/response-to-select-committees-announcing-a-citizens-assembly-have-we-achieved-our-third-demand/
>> No. 427782 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 12:21 am
427782 spacer
>>427781

Yeah, let's give legislative powers to schoolkids who want to ban petrol. I can see that working just fine.
>> No. 427783 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 12:24 am
427783 spacer
>>427779
Actually:
1. She was being a cunt
2. He ejected her from the building using a minimum of force


>> No. 427784 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 12:26 am
427784 spacer
>>427783

Fucking hell >>427779, what utterly shameless bullshit you spouted there. I never thought I'd side with a Tory over an activist but here we are.

Go fuck yourself for being so disingenuous.
>> No. 427785 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 12:33 am
427785 spacer
>>427779
I'm probably more adept at climbing a tree than somebody like you.
>> No. 427786 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 1:02 am
427786 spacer
>>427783
>>427784

Pardon?


What part of what I said is inaccurate?

>>427785
Ok
>> No. 427787 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 1:15 am
427787 spacer
>>427786

I'm going to go out on a limb and say we're going to need more than that 30 seconds of video.

By that I am asking, what happened previously that lead up to this point? You don't just jump up and throw a woman out just for walking past. If that is indeed what happened then fair enough, he was bang out of order, but I have an inkling that's not the whole story is it.
>> No. 427788 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 1:56 am
427788 spacer
>>427784

It's undoubtedly an offence of battery; the question is whether Field has a lawful defence. It's utterly implausible to believe that he feared immediate physical harm, particularly given the demeanour of the other attendees, so self defence is out. The protester was arguably engaged in aggravated trespass, but his use of force is both disproportionate and unnecessary for the prevention of that continued offence. He didn't ask her to leave, he didn't attempt to shepherd her out, he didn't wait for the police to deal with it.

I'm a conservative, I have no patience for these sorts of daft protest stunts, but two wrongs don't make a right. Field showed a disturbing lack of clear-headedness and restraint. He needlessly escalated what had until that point been a peaceful protest. If this video had involved a police officer rather than an MP, they would already be suspended pending an investigation. Police careers have been ended over less.

At a bare minimum, Field needs to be brought in for an interview under caution.
>> No. 427789 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 2:03 am
427789 spacer
>>427788

>It's utterly implausible to believe that he feared immediate physical harm, particularly given the demeanour of the other attendees, so self defence is out.

Not universally. Self defence depends on how a would-be victim subjectively perceives a threat in a given situation. If somebody points a toy gun at you that looks real enough that you can't rule out in the heat of the moment that it's an actual gun, then what you do to that person, within reason, to avert that threat is generally covered under self defence.
>> No. 427790 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 2:05 am
427790 spacer
>>427788

For the avoidance of doubt, this video from the same event shows appropriate uses of force. The rest of the protesters were removed by venue staff with a minimum of force, which is perfectly fine. What's not fine is shoving someone into a wall or grabbing them by the neck.


>> No. 427791 Anonymous
21st June 2019
Friday 2:23 am
427791 spacer
>>427789

You're entirely right that it depends on the subjective perception of the situation, but nothing in Field's behaviour indicates that he believed he was at immediate risk of harm. Field grabbed the woman as she was walking past him; he had to physically contort himself to grab her and use a significant amount of force to prevent her from walking on. That strongly undermines a claim of self defence.

The perception of the situation is subjective, but the reasonableness of the force is judged objectively relative to that perceived threat. What threat could Field have perceived that make his actions reasonable? If he feared that she had a concealed weapon in her bag, why did he remove her from the building rather than attempt to remove the bag from her grasp? If he feared that he might be struck from behind as he was sitting, how does that justify grabbing her around the back of the neck after he has already taken physical control?

His behaviour as evidenced in the video simply does not accord with someone acting to protect themselves from violence.

It also bears stating that the burden of proof lies with Field - there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed an offence and it is incumbent on him to prove that he had lawful justification.
>> No.&n