Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "How late is too late?" video.

@Hickalum And you understand the term accelerated global warming and that we are warmer now than the last 3 million years means nothing of the past can be used as a guide, right though? You understand the plants we have grown with have come from times much colder, apples for instance need cold weather. The only problem is I see people thinking they have the answer when they don't understand the problem, like you. The things you mention are quite honestly, low hanging fruit, it's the other things we did, or didn't do but insurance companies are leaving communities, properties are being devalued and people are losing their lives. What profit do you think there is for people who have been flooded five times this year in France, have you not seen the devastation, when will you stop helping these large corporation by saying there's nothing wrong because that's all you are helping.
6
Stop thinking it's one person, this is global.
5
@jameswlong I own my property and vehicle outright, I still pay on them. If I owned then I shouldn't have to keep paying now should I? You pay to the state not for services, not at the rate they charge. Take out taxes and govt fee's how much of your life has been yours
4
The removal of oil, either forced or by choice will mean an incredible change in everybody's attitude including politicians. This will happen in your lifetime and we are the customers of those vested interests and nobody is going to replace something we didn't create or pay the external costs of, yet. I don't know anybody that has spent less, refused pay rises, not looked forward to a holiday, so let's not ignore our part in the system. There will be no replacement for something they didn't create, 6000 products come from oil and it surrounds us, single use plastic comes from the same barrel diesel does and people still plan driving holidays. Change will happen when it runs out or we stop using the products by choice which no one I know seems to do. I disagree it's not about attitudes, if people realised that other people have been killed for oil and how bad it will become, just so they can go for a drive, it changes things. People just don't know and are kept ignorant by the state, at least change the attitude of working dead end jobs, of wasting energy towards things that aren't sustainable, mindless debt that we call money, let's at least change those things and see instead of blaming people we are customers of and calling them greedy instead of looking at ourselves. Saying they should have a replacement so we can just carry on is where the problem lies as "they" have none and if we want one of the products from oil what do we do with the other 5999? The attitude of people being self sufficient could change and the problem will be less for them, especially considering people are asking for change from those they should expect it from the least, a change in that attitude would be a great start.
3
Like you own anything now, you basically rent and what's wrong with happy?
3
Why mention what percentage of all gases it is for? CO2 is 80% of the greenhouse gases, mentioning the ones that aren't or what percentage doesn't really matter. 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k/62 mile high and carbon has mass. It's ppm, so you have to figure out how large a million sized parcel of molecules is ( it's really tiny ) then at 516ppm per million sized parcel of molecules and trillions of those parcels just above you then you can see the problem knowing that carbon reflects heat. Please stop telling the people of the rest of what you said, it's a scatter gun of nonsense, cheers.
3
@foxmoongaze Ha, people like you should be banned.
3
@foxmoongaze It's that you have no answer to the points raised. you have a scatter gun of denials and I don't want to waste my time but the confusion that you prefer spreading is why you shouldn't be allowed to do what you are doing. I don't mind ignorance but once told you shouldn't continue until you can disprove it. Not considering the side of history you'll be..
3
The choice is to work or not work, we worked towards profit instead of sustainable goals, we all took pay rises and went on holidays, the first time you see a politician on a platform of LESS jobs vote for them, but would you?
2
@jameswlong I am arguing you rent, until you stop paying, you are forced into a system, where you are forced to have debt always being entered into, upon which interest is paid. You own a house that is valued by the people who profit from the valuing and have no control over how any of it is paid and think you are free. Your whole life has revolved around bankers debt and then try to be edgy with you will own nothing and be happy like you own things and are. If we could give everybody food, shelter and medical care for free, it would raise well being, ownership is a concept based on debt, some of us wouldn't mind getting away from that and if "happy" comes along with it then bring it on I say.
2
@jameswlong Every single dollar you have or have had is bankers debt that they have charged interest for. I don't believe everything is pointless but we could have made things sustainable with this one time resource instead of selfish hedonism of supposed ownership and thinking we can buy our way out of resource depletion. We put value on soon to be worthless debt, gave our lives, and everything is about to turn to shit, when you talk of the logic of value we will have to disagree on agreeing because I'm not seeing it and moving forward when all insurance is gone and sea levels are up a couple of metres and its sunk in to everybody it's only getting faster, will the council still be pumping water?
2
@Hickalum Yeah and if you'd read the textbook it would have said how long left, have you checked lately? Point is we can't use it or are you one of those denialists too?
2
@rinnin 4 day week, you are funny, a ninety percent reduction in consumption won't happen if people work one day less. Degrowth of only working on either food, shelter, medical or services for the state and at most 4-5 years of your life. De growth is going back to everyone having a garden, degrowth is the removal of money if it can still buy the same amount of energy. A four day week if for the same wage then nothing has been achieved, it needs to living like they were 200 years ago, with electricity and staying home or walking, it means less jobs, overall not 20% less days working.
1
None of that replaces oil, if you want synthetic rubber on wires or mining oil will still be needed and that runs out in a few decades, the removal of plastic would be life changing for most of us. We can take electricity with us but not all energy and remove oil from your life how much do you have left?
1
@fastestkid 6000 products all come from the same barrel, if you want one of those products then the rest have to be refined off, nuclear will never replace all of that so some adjustment will have to be made, because electricity is a small part of our overall energy.
1
@zopEnglandzip We haven't done any efforts though, it's all been mis direction.
1
Definitely don't adopt a vegan diet, it's the most destructive system, based off skewed data of putting all the emissions onto the meat, while we get so much more. Crops have been pushed to subsidise meat, where more crop waste is fed than food we grow for them. 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is 100k high, all the sprays etc go into this tiny sliver of atmosphere, crops are virtual deserts, absolutely worst system, ex.
1
more crop waste goes to animals than food we grow for them as ex v, don't believe the hype.
1
@zodd67 On reality that you could have checked before asking, As far as UK is concerned it is supposed to get unable to grow crops so will only be non arable land, the land we don't spray, going to all crops for food is not wise. We get far more from animals than just food though, wool, milk, gelatine to hold together toilet paper, fats that go into plastic like this device, activated carbon to filter water, leather, all these need a grown replacement, there isn't the arable land available to go crop based and get all that we get now.
1
@zodd67 I always love this argument, no, it is the new kid on the block that needs to prove everything can be replaced better for the environment. Growing a crop replacement for wool of beef where they are on non arable land that doesn't get sprayed or irrigated will be hard to do. It's not about need it's that they are used now, pet food, gelatine in toilet paper, fats in plastics, the point is can a grown replacement be found, I don't have to prove something I don't believe exists. The point is also we feed more crop waste to animals than we grow for them, i don't eat caged animals but isn't this a net gain at the very least environmentally?
1
@zodd67 Also, the metrics of the comparisons is something to look at. Measuring the amount of crops that make it to market per kilo and measuring that against meat per kg, with the emissions put all onto the meat, is an incorrect way of measuring it. A kilo of any crop should have less emissions, the metric of weight hasn't any bearing on nutrition, overall value/products, just how much water one product could hold.
1
@zodd67 Soy is a great one where metrics can confuse the issue. humans use 92% of the human usable part of soy, 6% whole bean, animals use 7% whole bean, the 87% is processed into oil of which animals take 1%, so animals take 8% of the human usable part but take 99% of the waste, same as all seed oils, the have seed cake that will get fed to chickens, fish, pigs mostly. By weight of the total product animals eat I think I've seen it as 87% of soy, yeah but most of that is indigestible by us. It's a statistic dressed up as the truth. If USA all animals are around 5% of emissions and beef around 65% of that, considering meat is around half of what we get and all the other things are quite energy dense any new system has to dhow it can reduce that percentage and replace all that we get. Agriculture is the same percentage if US and the around a third of corn that all animals take is not going to replace all that we get. We could compost the waste, it would still emit to the atmosphere and people have tried to process it into food but it's a lot of energy when animals do it for basically free. " We" as in the collective.
1
Bush Senior said we had a choice between the environment or jobs and then we all went back to work.
1
Change is hard when no-one's seen it. It's the definition of utopia, a place no-one has ever seen but we are all supposed to go towards it. A carbon value system could equalise emissions but would we change by choice if it means 90% less, could we all go back to the carbon levels of the 1800's? I think so.
1
@foxmoongaze No because the stupidity of what you are saying is probably recognised, stop with your stupidity, please.
1
@foxmoongaze You understand facts aren't about narrative? 0.00005% is how much hydrogen is in the atmosphere but it's about 11% when drinking water, the percentages mean something there right but saying it's 0.04% or whatever of the total atmosphere is just silly and you should stop, it makes no sense if the mass is closer. It's a very out dated denialists attitude.
1
@foxmoongaze May the camel fart forever be downwind, may you realise that big tobacco couldn't disprove cancer so all they could do to continue sales was create confusion through disinformation, you are no better than them.
1
@keithshippey230 10,000 years ago they told the peasants to collect the flesh of RA the sun god from creeks, this was gold, and they might get an extra sheaf of wheat, we now have money, the level of control of the masses goes much further back than Cameron.
1