What a great list of experts! I wonder how much of a difference to climate change would of been made if they never met up? 100 people putting out a carbon foot print larger than the average person 100 to 1.
They are all hell bent to make a difference as long as it does not effect them!
i'd like to know if any of the media there ask these celebs about their virtue signalling and what the answer is. this is beyond stupid
too bad a company like google could not harness the power of the internet to bring these minds together on a small carbon footprint basis. but i guess that would be boring for the celebs to have to lay by their pool and skype.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
At the risk of sounding condescending and combative, this is actually a pretty awful paper with nothing but flimsy smokescreens.
Firstly, I like to get an idea of where these kinds papers are coming from. This is from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation", which is a think tank funded by Oil industry. The author himself is from the laughable "Friends of Science" group that is also funded by Oil and Gas.
Inherent bias aside let's look at what it's stating. The author states that decarbonisation isn't possible and even calls the paper "A Transition to Reality", as if those who are working on it aren't based in reality. This is a pretty obvious bit of trolling here and kinda speaks to the depth of argument the author actually has here. He's saying that not only an arbitrary timeline of complete decarbonisation by 2030 (which not one important person is advocating) isbn't feasible, he's arguing that decarbonisation itself isn't feasible. Starts with a complete straw man argument here to try and cast aspersions on something that is feasible.
His first argument is that historically, electricity generation energy technologies take a median of 43 years to reach commercialization, therefore that's too long to reach decarbonisation in any meaningful timeline. The first communication technology commercialisation changes took decades too. Now it takes months/years. We know decarbonisation won't happen in 11 years, that's impossible. That doesn't mean we can't start seriously decreasing carbon emissions.
The next argument is a political one, and I'll give him some of the argument here. Governments will need to "pick winners and losers" in order to generate the changes necessary and that is inherently difficult. However, he fails to mention that the government already does this in every single sector except now they'll need to pick different ones and that's what the author and his benefactors have a problem with. While this will continue to be a persistent barrier to conversion to renewables, economic realities may make some of these concerns moot. For example, both wind and solar have become much cheaper than coal and these technologies are still in early on in the development stage and will become even cheaper.
The next barrier he discusses is where current generation is and how far it needs to go to get to decarbonisation. It's a significant step yes, but it's kind of the whole point, right? I mean, yes, the switch will need to be significant. It's a large change. Yup
I'm not going to go through the rest of the paper point by point on here, but it really lacks any sort of critical thinking. Complete decarbonisation is impossible in 11 years, so he's right I guess. But we do need to significantly decrease carbon emissions and soon, so what exactly is this paper trying to explain? This is transparently a paper put into the ether to push against decarbonisation policies by those who do not want them
My opinion of every person attending that event just cratered. In most cases they're just celebrities, who I don't expect to be anything but venal, dimwitted, and narcissistic. But I used to actually have some respect for a few people on the list. I have to wonder how Obama's political antenna, in particular, could have failed so badly. I mean, this is Marie Antoinette level heedless excess. A PR firm couldn't have dreamt up a better scenario to discredit the cause of combating climate change.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
“Google Camp is meant to be a place where influential people get together to discuss how to make the world better,” one frequent flier told the tabloid.
Let's be honest. It's all about how to make the world better for them. None of these people actually care about making personal sacrifices for the common goal. It's all about the common folk carrying the burden so these people can carry on living the life of luxury. I have no time for these hypocrites. Don't care what they have to say and don't care about their discussions.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
The Following User Says Thank You to monkeyman For This Useful Post:
Can Obama even travel without using a private jet? For security reasons.
I don't see a situation why he wouldn't be allowed, he isn't the current President after all and the country's government doesn't depend on him.
That being said, I do know former President's are given lifetime Secret Service protection. The security detail may recommend flying private aircraft for a variety of reasons.
Modern day President's have jam packed schedule's for a bunch of events, even't which earn them millions and millions of dollars and require their time to run like Swiss watches.
I recall when Obama came to Canada a few months back for his speaking tour. I was able to track his private plane via Flightaware.com and it looked something along the lines of this from what I recall.
Flew from Washington, DC in the morning to Winnipeg for an early afternoon speech.
Flew from Winnipeg to Calgary for a 7 pm?? Speech. Appeared to spend the night in Calgary.
Flew from Calgary to Vancouver for a lunch time speech before departing for Utah where he was attending a tech conference.
Probably made at least $1 million in fee's for 3 speeches in a little more than 24 hours spent in Canada. With that type of earning power, why bother wasting your time, safety and comfort traveling with the rest of us?
Fifty-seven people died due to heat-related medical issues in Japan over the week starting July 29, the government said Tuesday, with the number of those taken to hospitals more than tripling to 18,347 from the previous week’s 5,664.
The weekly figure for hospitalizations due to high temperatures was the second highest since tallies began in 2008, according to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency.
Of the 18,347 people, 729 had severe symptoms that will require more than three weeks of treatment as an inpatient, while 6,548 had less serious issues, requiring shorter stays. Those age 65 and older accounted for 54.3 percent of the total.
The coal fired steam engines (locomotives) of the Sandaoling coal mine in China. These are China’s Jeaious Class Locomotives and
only still used here. I’ll bet they don’t have a problem with vegetation encroaching on the tracks.
When pulling 50 coal cars for 3 miles up a pretty steep grade out of the mine pit, the best they can do is 30 kph (18.6 mph).
These engines are scheduled to be shut down, along with the mine in 2020, as China moves to cleaner energy.
They say one of these engines goes by ever 10 minutes or so.
50 coal cars, every ten minutes, night and day, that’s a lot of coal, and a lot of energy to replace.
Celebrities traveling IS a cause though, far greater than the average joe. The meme doesnt fit.
There are about 4 billion average joes. No matter how awesome your instagram is, not everyone can be a celebrity.
Should I post an article every time an average joe drives a car to work and back? Take a plane for a vacation? Take a plane for a work trip? Goes on a cruise? Ahhh, but those don't count. Because they're not celebrities and don't make headlines that distract from the real causes.
Celebrities aren't the problem, the people who share distracting click-bait and low level climate change denying articles are.
