7% reduction of carbon per year till 2030
11-27-2020, 04:08 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by filejw
See above not his stuff !!!! All his wife who BTW is one the reasons his Presidential campaign failed as she is reputed to be an out of touch PITA .
You quoted a Bill Gates story so yes it's his stuff not Melinda's. As for Kerry, yes he was smart enough to marry wealth but he makes full use of the trappings while telling us we need to reduce our "carbon footprint", out of touch indeed.
11-27-2020, 04:58 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,201
Fortunately this is fringe lunatic stuff, and *most* folks at least in the US are smart enough to realize that if you permanently cut 50% of the economy, you'll cut 50% of the jobs. Tech companies are in favor of course because if everyone is on lockdown for life, that means a lot more screen time.
The ONLY way these people are going to achieve their emissions goals is to employ advanced low-carbon technology to maintain our current lifestyles in the developed countries, and allow developing countries to keep developing. Advanced nuclear power for example. Also you could make a large and broad environmental impact if EVERYTHING had to be designed for easy, near 100% recycling; no real need for much of anything anything to go in a landfill (or the ocean).
Most people in the world are simply not going to voluntarily buy into some sort of monastic existence.
Bears watching though, and the airline industry has to show carbon progress, that's not politically optional regardless of what you think of climate change (or climate fraud).
The ONLY way these people are going to achieve their emissions goals is to employ advanced low-carbon technology to maintain our current lifestyles in the developed countries, and allow developing countries to keep developing. Advanced nuclear power for example. Also you could make a large and broad environmental impact if EVERYTHING had to be designed for easy, near 100% recycling; no real need for much of anything anything to go in a landfill (or the ocean).
Most people in the world are simply not going to voluntarily buy into some sort of monastic existence.
Bears watching though, and the airline industry has to show carbon progress, that's not politically optional regardless of what you think of climate change (or climate fraud).
11-27-2020, 05:50 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,171
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Fortunately this is fringe lunatic stuff, and *most* folks at least in the US are smart enough to realize that if you permanently cut 50% of the economy, you'll cut 50% of the jobs. Tech companies are in favor of course because if everyone is on lockdown for life, that means a lot more screen time.
The ONLY way these people are going to achieve their emissions goals is to employ advanced low-carbon technology to maintain our current lifestyles in the developed countries, and allow developing countries to keep developing. Advanced nuclear power for example. Also you could make a large and broad environmental impact if EVERYTHING had to be designed for easy, near 100% recycling; no real need for much of anything anything to go in a landfill (or the ocean).
Most people in the world are simply not going to voluntarily buy into some sort of monastic existence.
Bears watching though, and the airline industry has to show carbon progress, that's not politically optional regardless of what you think of climate change (or climate fraud).
The ONLY way these people are going to achieve their emissions goals is to employ advanced low-carbon technology to maintain our current lifestyles in the developed countries, and allow developing countries to keep developing. Advanced nuclear power for example. Also you could make a large and broad environmental impact if EVERYTHING had to be designed for easy, near 100% recycling; no real need for much of anything anything to go in a landfill (or the ocean).
Most people in the world are simply not going to voluntarily buy into some sort of monastic existence.
Bears watching though, and the airline industry has to show carbon progress, that's not politically optional regardless of what you think of climate change (or climate fraud).
11-27-2020, 09:17 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 791
Originally Posted by filejw
See above not his stuff !!!! All his wife who BTW is one the reasons his Presidential campaign failed as she is reputed to be an out of touch PITA .
11-28-2020, 04:39 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Maybe, but lunatic fringe it’s not—this “reset” is sponsored by the World Economic Forum, real movers and shakers, not misfit Occipy Wall Street types. It took real hypocritical chops to write this manifest after flying in to Davos on 1500 private jets. Switzerland turns over thei4 prime SAF base at Dubendorf to park these clowns. I’ve been there, it makes the KY Derby look like HS football game.
If they achieve their goals of 7+% per year, you can forget having a job in this career, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have mass starvation in this country. Those New Zealand bunkers that these people have been buying might pay off very soon.
11-28-2020, 05:06 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,391
It's just talk.
It's easy and fun to talk about reducing emissions and carbon targets, but the reality is, everyone wants the economy to do well. These billionaires that you fear are the people who own most of the stock market. They have a very vested interest in it continuing to do well.
It's all bark, no bite. Just like the Paris deal. For those who think the Paris Climate deal is going to end the airlines, read this:
Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets.[33] The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an "executive agreement rather than a treaty". Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.--- from Wikipedia
Basically, there's no teeth to the deal at all. It's just a big nice idea. We won't achieve our "goals" and it won't matter.
It's easy and fun to talk about reducing emissions and carbon targets, but the reality is, everyone wants the economy to do well. These billionaires that you fear are the people who own most of the stock market. They have a very vested interest in it continuing to do well.
It's all bark, no bite. Just like the Paris deal. For those who think the Paris Climate deal is going to end the airlines, read this:
Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets.[33] The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an "executive agreement rather than a treaty". Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.--- from Wikipedia
Basically, there's no teeth to the deal at all. It's just a big nice idea. We won't achieve our "goals" and it won't matter.
11-28-2020, 06:33 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by Aero1900
It's just talk.
It's easy and fun to talk about reducing emissions and carbon targets, but the reality is, everyone wants the economy to do well. These billionaires that you fear are the people who own most of the stock market. They have a very vested interest in it continuing to do well.
It's all bark, no bite. Just like the Paris deal. For those who think the Paris Climate deal is going to end the airlines, read this:
Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets.[33] The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an "executive agreement rather than a treaty". Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.--- from Wikipedia
Basically, there's no teeth to the deal at all. It's just a big nice idea. We won't achieve our "goals" and it won't matter.
It's easy and fun to talk about reducing emissions and carbon targets, but the reality is, everyone wants the economy to do well. These billionaires that you fear are the people who own most of the stock market. They have a very vested interest in it continuing to do well.
It's all bark, no bite. Just like the Paris deal. For those who think the Paris Climate deal is going to end the airlines, read this:
Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets.[33] The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an "executive agreement rather than a treaty". Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.--- from Wikipedia
Basically, there's no teeth to the deal at all. It's just a big nice idea. We won't achieve our "goals" and it won't matter.
11-28-2020, 08:00 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 1,256
Originally Posted by Xtreme87
These people control all the resources of the planet. They control all trade, communications, and means of production. Do you think they need you anymore? The stock market is mostly just held up by printed money. These people control the monetary system, they can literally make a new system if they wanted to. Guess what, they would still be rich and powerful.
in any event, you might go outside for a walk, it is nice out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
