Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

I think it must be a record Muddy

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

Absolutely!!

You're right in principal, but alas there is no way that people will be inclined to "move backwards". The solution is to make more environmentally friendly produce not only desirable, but affordable. Your point about shareholders would lead into a discussion about economic theory, which IMHO would detract from the discussion. It's not as simple as one might hope, and I'd refer you to perhaps read something along the lines of this to realise the complexities.

Agree in principle. My great grandmother used to say that she couldn't afford to buy cheap clothes. It is this sort of view that needs to be adopted as the norm, with the caveat that employment is maintained or distributed equitably since, after all, there's no use building something that lasts 50 years if nobody can afford it.

There could be a discussion about the relevance of the Alec Guiness film The Man in the White Suit

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

Dex I've just googled Man in a white suit, have never seen the original. Looks like it must be a good film. Funny how some 20th C old fiction and writing was so ahead of its time. It probably sums up a lot of what happens in the technology industry nowadays. Pharma too no doubt.

I do think many people are inclined to move what is seen as "backwards". They are realising that having the latest phone is a real con. The technological revolution is making people more stressed than happy. They sit there on the train frowning at their phones. It's unhealthy and abnormal.

The economic model we use is at the heart of this. But it is complex and there's no model that is palatable and allows for change. The "shareholder wealth" model is absolutely outdated though and needs to be changed. If you change that model then innovation should flourish. Because it has been stifled by the restrictions of corporate finance. The market is not free and it's not helping the planet. But it's fiercely protected by those whose interests it serves. There's no simple solution. But unless people recognise there's a problem they cannot think through a better way.

The trouble is that people with all sorts of covert interests get on the eco bandwagon because they see it as their own pet political project. We don't need revolutions, it has to be gradual. We just need a shift in behaviour and trend. Just as hardly anyone smokes cigarettes these days and nobody uses disposable plastic bags.

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

but inexorable I'm afraid.

There is a strong argument that innovation flourishes because of it, not despite it. Companies will only continue to make money if they make something perceived to be worth owning, which requires innovation. Who should benefit from the proceeds of the sales of these goods if not the people who were/are willing to take the risk to finance these gambles?

Yep. This is a revolution which needs years, perhaps decades, for it to evolve. IMHO, it is already well and truly off the starting blocks and their is little need for Greta to shout out "bang".

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

And how many birds they mash up.

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

I am very dubious about wiki's claims that it only takes between three to six months to produce the amount of energy it took to commision it....
What about the cost of quarrying the raw materials for making the parts? The damage to the environment that quarrying does?
The heat required to founder the metals?
And also electricity for the manufacture of the parts? I worked in a small engineering factory and the electricity bill was huge!

They need large quantities of oil for lubrication, and although the oil isn't burned, it has to be recovered from the ground and processed.
And the wind cannot be guaranteed, plus, they can't be used when the wind is too strong either....

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

All products of manufacture and our insatiable appetite for stuff Annie, even things like Wind turbines and Solar panels....Although I don't believe we can do anything about climate change I do believe that we cannot sustain the type of lifestyle that we currently enjoy and somethings got to give.

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

Good points. It is, after all, not unknown for interested parties to 'massage' figures for their own ends!

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

The Planet might well be able to maintain its eco-systems with a certain number of people all doing bad things but can't carry on supporting the now large populations all doing the same.

In short, we could all carry on with the way we live if there weren't so many of us. Who's going to volunteer to be thinned out?

Re: Greta Thunberg ... again

The solution is perfectly possible. We must reduce the world's population.
This could be done quite simply by emulating the Chinese actions: reduce childbirth. I believe they limited each couple to having no more than two children. It worked.

I believe each country could do the same, the number of children relating to its needs. In our case, for example, the ideal number would be between two and three, I think.

The worst offenders, mostly African and south Asian nations, may have to arrive at different figures.

Some countries of course, probably the latter-named ones, are the most likely not to comply. Any attempt by the more responsible countries to support them and, effectively, encourage their increasing populations would result in our present world population increase to continue dangerously.