The IPCC is probably still hung-up on per capita emissions.uziq wrote:
not in the view of the IPCC.
Fuck Israel
At least they got rid of the two jews.Cybargs wrote:
Apparnetly all those independent voters are racist and hate the gays.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/i- … 522-p5anhx“I’m hoping they’re happy with their work,” Mr Joyce told The Australian Financial Review on Sunday. “They’ve managed to get rid of three gay guys, one Aboriginal and one Asian. Was that their game plan?”
Fuck Israel
what a damn shame the experts don't see things the same way as you, eh.Dilbert_X wrote:
The IPCC is probably still hung-up on per capita emissions.uziq wrote:
not in the view of the IPCC.
Well it is, we could solve most problems with population reduction, not technical fixes which will be negated by more population.
Fuck Israel
reducing the australian population you mean.
Just the Indians, they bring their air polluting ways to pristine Australia. /s
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … l-coalmineunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Just the Indians, they bring their air polluting ways to pristine Australia. /s
Damn Indians againCybargs wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … l-coalmineunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Just the Indians, they bring their air polluting ways to pristine Australia. /s
Fuck Israel
the chinese population is shrinking and will be drastically different in 100-150 years time, if they don't do something dramatic to reverse the trend. in their urban-elite centres, and particularly after the pandemic and economic downturn, fertility rates in places like shanghai are approaching a staggering 0.5.
(you can thank a generation and a half of one-child-policy, coupled to their society's emphasis on males carrying the family legacy, for the CCP's hesitancy to deploy mass ground armies and suffer immense attritional losses à la russia. productive-age males are an increasingly valuable asset in CCP land.)
australia is expanding its carbon-emitting fossil fuel programmes and has a growing population. to say nothing of the fact that the average australian has a carbon footprint about 2.5x the average chinese person.
i think we need to start talking about euthanizing australians.
(you can thank a generation and a half of one-child-policy, coupled to their society's emphasis on males carrying the family legacy, for the CCP's hesitancy to deploy mass ground armies and suffer immense attritional losses à la russia. productive-age males are an increasingly valuable asset in CCP land.)
australia is expanding its carbon-emitting fossil fuel programmes and has a growing population. to say nothing of the fact that the average australian has a carbon footprint about 2.5x the average chinese person.
i think we need to start talking about euthanizing australians.
Last edited by uziq (2022-05-31 04:28:06)
Doesn't really matter when China is producing more than 20 times the emissions of Australia, India 6 times, Korea, a tiny countrylet, 1.5 times.
Its OK, if Australia increases its population by a factor of two and only increases total emissions by 50% that will bring down our per capita emissions nicely.
I'm sure the troposphere will be very pleased to know the extra CO2 is OK on a per capita basis.
Its OK, if Australia increases its population by a factor of two and only increases total emissions by 50% that will bring down our per capita emissions nicely.
I'm sure the troposphere will be very pleased to know the extra CO2 is OK on a per capita basis.
Fuck Israel
well therein is the problem, isn't it? australia's last government, at least, were determined to press ahead with suicidal fossil-fuels-based expansion. all but full-out with climate change denialism.
at least china is notionally onboard with major green investments.
korea has a rapidly declining population too. for all your fears of population explosions, you seem irrationally concerned with a bunch of east asian countries with negative birthrates.
at least china is notionally onboard with major green investments.
korea has a rapidly declining population too. for all your fears of population explosions, you seem irrationally concerned with a bunch of east asian countries with negative birthrates.
Erm no the last govt was determined to press ahead with the status quo, no significant expansion.
Fuck Israel
Great, so we're agreed, population reduction is a good thing.uziq wrote:
korea has a rapidly declining population too. for all your fears of population explosions, you seem irrationally concerned with a bunch of east asian countries with negative birthrates.
Now go tell the Indians.
Fuck Israel
i still think it's deeply, deeply funny that you have focalized your 'green credentials' on this forum, for years, with your personal example, as if you're leading some morally superior life because of your consumer choices. you've even said before that climate change can be meaningfully 'fixed' by the same individual-level consumer behaviour: "if we just stop buying the oil companies products, they'll have to change tack!"
but as soon as that same individual-level, moralistic logic is turned back on you, and someone says, "er, well actually chap, your personal lifestyle incurs a carbon cost to the planet that is 5x that of your average indian peasant, minding their own business and being boiled alive in heatwaves", you start getting all Malthusian and talking about 'over-population'.
in other words, you enjoy 'virtue signalling' like a libcuck to your heart's content, but deflect onto 'global population' as soon as anyone raises the problematic energy arrangement in your country, at a national or collective level. amazing stuff.
but as soon as that same individual-level, moralistic logic is turned back on you, and someone says, "er, well actually chap, your personal lifestyle incurs a carbon cost to the planet that is 5x that of your average indian peasant, minding their own business and being boiled alive in heatwaves", you start getting all Malthusian and talking about 'over-population'.
in other words, you enjoy 'virtue signalling' like a libcuck to your heart's content, but deflect onto 'global population' as soon as anyone raises the problematic energy arrangement in your country, at a national or collective level. amazing stuff.
Last edited by uziq (2022-05-31 06:48:03)
lmao wtf? at the last IPCC it was explicitly commented upon how australia, in particular, was raising massive eyebrows with their plans for expansion.Dilbert_X wrote:
Erm no the last govt was determined to press ahead with the status quo, no significant expansion.
Australia considering more than 100 fossil fuel projects that could produce 5% of global industrial emissions
The coal and gas works, if approved, would result in a nearly 30% increase in emissions within Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -emissions
'press ahead with the status quo, no significant expansion'? a 30% increase in emissions is the status quo to you? LMAO.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/ … -stations/
Australia’s fossil fuel expansion plans equivalent to over 200 new coal power stations
we get it, you've become inured to the automatic feeling of superiority, as if your shit doesn't stink. shame that reality and its troublesome facts get in the way of your white-saviour posturing.
Last edited by uziq (2022-05-31 06:49:18)
None of those emissions will be produced in Australia though eh?
I'd be perfectly happy to say China, India and, er, South Korea, can't have Australian coal.
Its about time China, India and, er, South Korea stopped building coal-fired power stations and burning coal like there's no tomorrow while Australia is shutting down coal-fired plants and reducing coal consumption.
You guys can live in the cold, the dark and be unable to charge your Apple devices. None of this is a problem for me as I enjoy the bulk of my energy being supplied by renewable resources.
But then people will call us racists for planning ahead and thinking about the future of the world so its easier to just let them have what they want.
Just think, to support you SK probably had to order an extra 5 tonnes of Australian coal this year.
Ponder that while you're bullying me.
I'd be perfectly happy to say China, India and, er, South Korea, can't have Australian coal.
Its about time China, India and, er, South Korea stopped building coal-fired power stations and burning coal like there's no tomorrow while Australia is shutting down coal-fired plants and reducing coal consumption.
You guys can live in the cold, the dark and be unable to charge your Apple devices. None of this is a problem for me as I enjoy the bulk of my energy being supplied by renewable resources.
But then people will call us racists for planning ahead and thinking about the future of the world so its easier to just let them have what they want.
Just think, to support you SK probably had to order an extra 5 tonnes of Australian coal this year.
Ponder that while you're bullying me.
Fuck Israel
i think we’ve already established many times over that my lifestyle, even in terms of personal consumption, is far below yours. i don’t own a subaru or drive to an office. i eat local food, walk mostly everywhere, and work in public spaces. how am i consuming vast amounts of coal, again?
try harder.
try harder.
All those places you live in and walk around were likely made of concrete, all the heat, light, cooked food etc thanks to coal.
Unless you take cold showers in the dark in the open and eat grass I suppose.
Unless you take cold showers in the dark in the open and eat grass I suppose.
Fuck Israel
never took dilbert for a greens voter
also one fucked thing is that in australia we export our gas at a 50% cheaper rate than what we pay for domestically... go figure.
right. so a temporary visitor to a place is responsible for the carbon-sink cost of their construction.Dilbert_X wrote:
All those places you live in and walk around were likely made of concrete, all the heat, light, cooked food etc thanks to coal.
Unless you take cold showers in the dark in the open and eat grass I suppose.
you best not ever *fly* to an urban centre ever again, dilbert. don't you know that all tourists to new york are factually accountable for all the pours in manhattan?
you truly are a fucking derpsoid idiot.
Yes, cost and carbon impost is amortised over the life of a product.
If a building hadn't been built you wouldn't be able to use it.
But we get it:
- uziq consumes electricity - the carbon cost should be lumped onto the people who dig the coal out of the ground, not the people who burn it or use the electricity
- uziq uses infrastructure - the carbon cost should be lumped onto the people who put the building up, not the people who use it
- uziq uses travel - the carbon cost should be lumped onto the people who produce the oil, not the people who burn it or enjoy travel
Wait a minute, didn't you just move into a larger apartment so your friends can travel half-way around the world to party?
you truly are a fucking derpsoid idiot.
If a building hadn't been built you wouldn't be able to use it.
But we get it:
- uziq consumes electricity - the carbon cost should be lumped onto the people who dig the coal out of the ground, not the people who burn it or use the electricity
- uziq uses infrastructure - the carbon cost should be lumped onto the people who put the building up, not the people who use it
- uziq uses travel - the carbon cost should be lumped onto the people who produce the oil, not the people who burn it or enjoy travel
Wait a minute, didn't you just move into a larger apartment so your friends can travel half-way around the world to party?
you truly are a fucking derpsoid idiot.
Fuck Israel
lol yea no shit the cost of a building is amortised.
but how am i responsible for the cost of the concrete pour and carbon emission? if i visit a café with 20,000 visitors per week, in a building that’s been there for 25 years. what’s my carbon contribution? hahaha.
i assume you truly never leave your parents compound. i’m sure all those big supermarkets with their umpteen hectare car parks that you drive to in order to get your food were carbon-neutral construction projects.
of course there is a cost to my use of travel infrastructure and city infrastructure. but whose contribution is bigger? you, in a personal vehicle, or me getting on a subway line with six or seven figure daily users? hahah, why do you even try and indict my lifestyle in this way? your contributions are categorically higher: you live in a low-density suburb in a large home and drive your own car. LMAO ffs.
if city lifestyles and relying on high-density, high-traffic public services and spaces is a ‘wasteful’ lifestyle, what does that make your nuclear atomised suburban sprawl? we’ve been here before when you tried to claim ‘cities are the problem’, and were swiftly corrected by macbeth/newbie/myself. suburbia is an order of magnitude more wasteful and ‘luxurious’.
honestly get some better fucking arguments lmao.
but how am i responsible for the cost of the concrete pour and carbon emission? if i visit a café with 20,000 visitors per week, in a building that’s been there for 25 years. what’s my carbon contribution? hahaha.
i assume you truly never leave your parents compound. i’m sure all those big supermarkets with their umpteen hectare car parks that you drive to in order to get your food were carbon-neutral construction projects.
of course there is a cost to my use of travel infrastructure and city infrastructure. but whose contribution is bigger? you, in a personal vehicle, or me getting on a subway line with six or seven figure daily users? hahah, why do you even try and indict my lifestyle in this way? your contributions are categorically higher: you live in a low-density suburb in a large home and drive your own car. LMAO ffs.
if city lifestyles and relying on high-density, high-traffic public services and spaces is a ‘wasteful’ lifestyle, what does that make your nuclear atomised suburban sprawl? we’ve been here before when you tried to claim ‘cities are the problem’, and were swiftly corrected by macbeth/newbie/myself. suburbia is an order of magnitude more wasteful and ‘luxurious’.
honestly get some better fucking arguments lmao.
Last edited by uziq (2022-06-02 04:57:22)
You're using it, the carbon cost is amortised and shared out, it doesn't just get applied to everyone but you.uziq wrote:
lol yea no shit the cost of a building is amortised.
but how am i responsible for the cost of the concrete pour and carbon emission?.
My contributions are relatively high, but if every country had the same population density everyone in the world could have a comfortable life and global warming would be a non-subject.
Population overshoot is the problem, not consumption, hence we have pandemics, food shortages, fuel shortages etc.
Whats the point of overpopulation and a miserable life for everyone?
Looks great, we should all live like this.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-06-02 05:03:49)
Fuck Israel