Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Almagnus1

Macron Explodes over Climate Stuff

Recommended Posts

https://news.yahoo.com/merkel-opposes-macron-threat-block-164247790.html

Funny how they don't mention the rampant polution of China and India... yet seem to focus on Brazil (which, to be fair, is warranted as deforestation of the rainforest is removing natural CO2 scrubbers).

So yeah.... maybe if Trump keeps trolling hard enough, eventually he'll force the EU to collapse as it seems he's already showing the cracks between France and Germany XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all virtue signalling and fear-mongering yet again. Brazil's had forest fires before and there's been much worse (interesting that a lot of media outlets keep showing a graph of increased forest fires, which conveniently only goes back to 2013 to hide the actual comparison). The amount of rainforest actually on fire is miniscule, and even if 100% of the fires are intentional (which they aren't), then it's being fuelled by a need for farmland because the West keeps relying on it for beef and soy products. Yeah, let's shove our demands over there to rid ourselves of responsibility, then act all indignant when a new moral outrage is manufactured. It's hypocrisy to ask another population to provide for you while also demonising them for doing what you'd already done yourself.

All of it pales in comparison to the true concern of the ever-expanding human populations (with China and India being the biggest players in it). CO2 is pretty much nothing in the grand scheme, especially when you take trends over the last 50 million years for both atmospheric CO2 and temperature. They keep saying about the global average increasing by 2100 to as much as 2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrialised times, and yet urban heat islands already create a 2 degree Celsius difference compared to surrounding areas without even trying. Wipe out natural areas to replace them with concrete jungles, and that's what you get. And you can't even try to revert back by planting the amount of forest needed because (even ignoring land use) the sheer amount of water needed would once again be incompatible with the demands of a overpopulated nation. Modern humans are just a disease.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doro, you have an excellent grasp of the overall big picture when it comes to our ecosystem and how humans affect its change. Historically those in Brazil employed slash and burn for farming. The difference now since a global economy and big business comes into the picture is those farmers don't move on to the next piece of fertile ground. They keep those previously cleared out areas and expand on them. What was once done, actually promoted natural growth in a forest. Now its just a slow ever-expanding, depletion dependent on petroleum based fertilizers. Also as you elude to, the need and available resource of fresh water for an ecosystem to survive comes into the math as well.

Much the same was done in the United States during the peak of the Colonial era. The Appalachian mountain chain along the east of the US were originally Chestnut forest. Huge trees felled for making ships. Those mountains since that time have been completely stripped bare from Maine to Georgia six times. Though since the late 1960s the forest have become managed in a way that is better than all the previous times. Using selective methods rather than the complete clear cut strategy.

I don't even understand how Brazil can come into any discussions, when it pales in comparison to what China has been doing for some 40 years. At least India with its 1 billion plus has breathable air, where as China's air can corrode the body off a car in ten years time. That's not even counting for how it affects a person. Perhaps the amount of pollution China creates will kill off enough of the Chinese to help contribute to some closer notion of balance in regard to the human incursion on this planet. :Y I don't see the fictional planet of Coruscant, as a place I like to live. Sure looks cool in a movie, but give our species another 500 years and it will be close enough to reality.

What's a tree precious? Never seen one, but I'm sure we can find a picture of one archived on a website. :?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya not entirely and the subject matter more discusses deforestation than the seasonal fires lit on existing farmland. The newly deforested land will be the next farm field for more seasonal farm fires. Still, comparatively to what China is doing, Brazil shouldn't be a discussion at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Splay said:

Ya not entirely and the subject matter more discusses deforestation than the seasonal fires lit on existing farmland. The newly deforested land will be the next farm field for more seasonal farm fires. Still, comparatively to what China is doing, Brazil shouldn't be a discussion at all.

That's the interesting thing.... most of the world is bending the knee to China and their rape of the environment... and then they throw stones at the other countries as if they can somehow make a dent when China outnumbers almost everyone else by at least an order of magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's the interesting thing.... most of the world is bending the knee to China and their rape of the environment... and then they throw stones at the other countries as if they can somehow make a dent when China outnumbers almost everyone else by at least an order of magnitude.

In a section of the county where I live, people are expected to separate their rubbish into four separate bins: a black bin for regular household rubbish, a blue bin for glass, plastic, and metal recycling, a brown bin for paper and cardboard recycling, and a smaller green bin for food waste. They expect the recycling stuff to be washed first, too. If you don't follow the rules the council has decided for that area, you'll get fined. The waste then gets sold to a couple of different processing plants, where they make money recycling it. We some how unwillingly got turned into the first stage of processing for waste so that some pricks at the top of a recycling company can get six figure incomes.

Meanwhile, the section right next to that section either has a different bin system (some don't have to recycle plastics, for example, because the recycling plant that council sells it to doesn't have the facilities to process it), or doesn't have to follow it at all and just chucks everything away like normal. And all of that in the name of "saving the planet". Yep, that's going to do it, a few arbitrary sections of a county being given a finable inconvenience, vs China. Hooray, we saved the polar bears! Worth a bin loicence.

20 hours ago, Splay said:

... but give our species another 500 years and it will be close enough to reality.

And despite all the doomsayers acting like we've only got another 20 years left at most, our species probably will see another 500 years. Probably something between a mix of Judge Dredd and Soylent Green, but that ceaseless march towards consumption and urbanisation isn't going to end soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I live, trash disposal is free. You have to take it yourself. There are 4 or 5 locations throughout the county and a central location where each satellite station eventually ends up. At each location there are the compactors with trash container connected. The kind a trailer can load and off load. Also the usual containers for separated items to be recycled. There are some people who collect trash for a fee from homes and deliver it to these stations. Mostly people who want extra income and take a load on a small trailer to a location. There isn't really  any garbage trucks like many places use, in this county. Surrounding counties do it differently but its similar to a fashion. Incorporated cities have their own city disposal and private owned garbage disposal companies. It is kinda nice to not have to pay for trash removal and surprisingly a fair majority separate and recycle at these locations, though it isn't required at all. I imagine the county weighed out the situation a time ago and concluded they'd rather have the trash disposal to be free, than have rural home owners collecting trash own their properties to eventually set ablaze. I'm sure the recycled collections generate a profit but I doubt it pays for the entire service. I guess the service as a whole is included in the counties annual budget by way of bi-annual property tax. So, for me its a good system set-up and far better than paying a fee to a city or established disposal company for trash removal. The counties population is small and this system provides some jobs for people who otherwise might be unemployed.

Surprising to me, since the general region is mostly rural country, the residents seemingly have embraced this idea of trash removal. It gives them the choice of independence, free of many constraints tied to an established system where the trash is removed on a predetermined basis. So, its just one small place, in the big wide world, doing their own thing with some regard to the problems people in general have created living in a modern world. Not that it will make a dent in all those larger problems by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I see some manufactured hysteria over climate, I try to figure out what the long-term aim actually is. Usually, it's to add more control over the population. Things like the focus on burning forests screams to me like the end result being government having more power to seize private land for "moral" reasons (manufacture an emergency over a lack of trees, start demanding general public use majority of their land for trees, hit people that don't follow it with heavy taxes, ultimately take the land back under claims of misuse or failure to pay fines, sell it on to property developers who exploit loopholes to avoid the tax themselves). But the fuss about carbon footprints was made pretty fucking clear in this article:

"Sir Ian said polluting activities should incur more tax. He believes the Treasury should reform taxation policy to reward people with low-carbon lifestyles and nudge heavy consumers into more frugal patterns of behaviour."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49499521

My bolding. This guy let slip something that's been fairly obvious for a while amongst the more sceptical observers of climate change: the government ultimately wants to be able to use taxation to limit people's freedom of choice for their lifestyles. Travelling too much? Tax. Using an older vehicle that can't be tracked by an on-board computer? Tax. Eating meat regularly? Tax. Have an old house that doesn't meet new environmental regulations? Tax. It's for the greater good, that's their excuse. And in order to check up on people, they'll need greater surveillance, so it's a win-win for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are stupid.  I mean that literally.  How much of the world population is illiterate or doesn't even have what passes for a high school graduation?  And then there are those who genuinely couldn't care less about what happens after they die or what impact we, as humans, have on the world around us.  

With that in mind, I'm not surprised that a governing body wants to "nudge people into behavior x, y or z".  Seriously.  

Sometimes, it really is for the greater good not just of our generation but future generations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×