Toronto Escorts

Greta Thunberg and other youth call on Trudeau to ditch fossil fuels

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,540
2,409
113
What she's saying isn't nonsense. We have a pollution problem, and a fossil fuel dependency that will eventually bite us.
I just don't think her proposed solutions are remotely feasible.
This ^^^
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,254
4,494
113
What she's saying isn't nonsense. We have a pollution problem, and a fossil fuel dependency that will eventually bite us.

I just don't think her proposed solutions are remotely feasible.

Agreed x2
 

Ref

Committee Member
Oct 29, 2002
5,073
1,007
113
web.archive.org
I wouldn’t call her a poser, I’d call her a young kid being exploited.
Here is how her 15 minutes will play out:

* Enjoy it for now.
* Someone will release a video of her indulging in the luxuries of life brought to her by fossil fuels or catch her in a highly hypocritical moment that will destroy her credibility.
* She will claim she was exploited, play the sympathy card, and as a final plea will tie it to a Trump supporter.
* She will disappear into obscurity, until someone digs up a "homeless and broke" feature on her.
* Desperate for cash she will release a porn (Gone with the Wind?).
* Reprieve of her popularity for a brief moment, hopefully enough to get her off crank and porn.
* Turn religious and denounce the press, her drug use, porn and claims of greening the planet.
* A movie will be made about her.
* Back into obscurity...

The only thing that would make this more interesting is if a video is released on her and Trudeau in the sack...
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
A 16 year old preaching to a grade 6 drama school teacher. Should work out well. Maybe she should take Grade 6 Science class and learn about the role of Co2 and the creation of all life form on the planet.
They are equals.
 

TeeJay

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
8,052
731
113
west gta
What she's saying isn't nonsense. We have a pollution problem, and a fossil fuel dependency that will eventually bite us.
I just don't think her proposed solutions are remotely feasible.
This nonsense response is exactly what the issue is

Pollution is not linked to fossil fuel use
And neither are linked to climate change

Like I said any grown adult that is willing to accept a 16 year old parrot is pretty sad imo
But Youtube and social media sites have made celebs of everyone these days
 

explorerzip

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2006
8,108
1,306
113
This nonsense response is exactly what the issue is

Pollution is not linked to fossil fuel use
And neither are linked to climate change

Like I said any grown adult that is willing to accept a 16 year old parrot is pretty sad imo
But Youtube and social media sites have made celebs of everyone these days
You may want to check your windows and doors because you've clearly been breathing too much engine exhaust.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,304
1,665
113
Ghawar
I'm all for finding a solution to the pollution problem, but no solution is not actually a solution.
The solution is there. At least in principle it
should be more plausible to implement than Greta
Thunberg's call for ditching fossil fuels. Population
control is what it takes to save the world from impending
ecological crisis. Even without global warming world's
population has to be reduced to save the planet from
mass extinction of non-human species. Problem solved
if only three out of ten young couples refrain from
procreation from this point on and the rest produce
no more than one offspring. But we won't have the
will power to pull off population control on a global
scale.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,149
2,601
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
The solution is there. At least in principle it
should be more plausible to implement than Greta
Thunberg's call for ditching fossil fuels. Population
control is all it takes to save the world from impending
ecological crisis. Even without global warming world's
population has to be reduced to save the planet from
mass extinction of non-human species. Problem solved
if only three out of ten young couples refrain from
procreation from this point on. But won't have the
will power to pull off population control on a global
scale.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-overpopulation-myth

over population is a myth

overpopulation myth is based on racism

https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-racist-myths-built-population-growth-bogey-man



populalation will peak in 2040 and then decline

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pulation-crisis-wrong-fertility-rates-decline
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
The solution is there. At least in principle it
should be more plausible to implement than Greta
Thunberg's call for ditching fossil fuels. Population
control is what it takes to save the world from impending
ecological crisis. Even without global warming world's
population has to be reduced to save the planet from
mass extinction of non-human species. Problem solved
if only three out of ten young couples refrain from
procreation from this point on and the rest produce
no more than one offspring. But we won't have the
will power to pull off population control on a global
scale.
That’s a bit silly, I’d go to India and China and see how that goes over.

Power geration and transportation is only half the issue, there are also industrial sources and meat sources that will have to be constrained. So unless you are driving your Tesla 3 while eating an impossible burger on your way home to your bamboo hut, YOU ARE GLOBAL WARMING
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,304
1,665
113
Ghawar
over population is a myth
Pollution of the planet is not a myth. Anyway nature
will take care of overpopulation. That is the way
it is with all species.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,304
1,665
113
Ghawar
That’s a bit silly, I’d go to India and China and see how that goes over.

Power geration and transportation is only half the issue, there are also industrial sources and meat sources that will have to be constrained. So unless you are driving your Tesla 3 while eating an impossible burger on your way home to your bamboo hut, YOU ARE GLOBAL WARMING
I don't get your point. Isn't that with a smaller population
demand for meat and industrial pollution will be reduced?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I don't get your point. Isn't that with a smaller population
demand for meat and industrial pollution will be reduced?
A billion poor people build few cities, drive few cars and eat little meat. Rich people are massive emitters.

Want to save the planet, burn your money.

When aggregated in terms of income, we see in the visualization that the richest half (high and upper-middle income countries) emit 86 percent of global CO2 emissions. The bottom half (low and lower-middle income) only 14%. The very poorest countries (home to 9 percent of the global population) are responsible for just 0.5 percent.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,304
1,665
113
Ghawar
When aggregated in terms of income, we see in the visualization that the richest half (high and upper-middle income countries) emit 86 percent of global CO2 emissions. The bottom half (low and lower-middle income) only 14%. The very poorest countries (home to 9 percent of the global population) are responsible for just 0.5 percent. This provides a strong indication of the relative sensitivity of global emissions to income versus population. Even several billion additional people in low-income countries — where fertility rates and population growth is already highest — would leave global emissions almost unchanged. 3 or 4 billion low income individuals would only account for a few percent of global CO2. At the other end of the distribution however, adding only one billion high income individuals would increase global emissions by almost one-third.
Well, that just means affluent countries like Canada and
the U.S. need to put a lid on immigration from poorer nations
where CO2 emission per capita are lower. Canada won't
have the political will to do that. We need more
immigrants to grow our economy according to
the Liberal party. Outlawing private jet travelling
would help if only that is possible. That won't
make some of the noted supporters of Greta
like Trudeau, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leonardo
DiCaprio and Ellen Degeneres happy though.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Well, that just means affluent countries like Canada and
the U.S. need to put a lid on immigration from poorer nations
where CO2 emission per capita are lower. Canada won't
have the political will to do that. We need more
immigrants to grow our economy according to
the Liberal party. Outlawing private jet travelling
would help if only that is possible. That won't
make some of the noted supporters of Greta
like Trudeau, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leonardo
DiCaprio and Ellen Degeneres happy though.
One could argue Clinton destroyed the planet by letting China in the WTO and helping to create a massive middle class.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts