Select to expand quotefangman said..cammd said..
Got any examples
I am not sure what you actually want an example of; but here are some from within the Murdoch Media Bubble you might have heard about who have walked the walk:
Emily Townsend: In January 2020, Emily Townsend, a commercial finance manager at News Corp Australia, resigned, condemning the organization's coverage of climate change as "irresponsible" and accusing it of spreading "climate change denial and lies."
James Murdoch: In July 2020, James Murdoch, the younger son of Rupert Murdoch, resigned from the News Corp board, citing "disagreements over certain editorial content." He had previously expressed frustration with the company's climate change coverage, particularly during the Australian bushfires.n July 2020, more than 280 journalists and staffers from the Wall Street Journal, a News Corp publication, sent a letter to the paper's publisher criticising the Opinion section for publishing inaccuracies and undermining the paper's credibility with readers and sources.
I agree there are multitudes of examples of climate politics hypocrisy, with perhaps Al Gore is the most (in)famous example. I think trying to pin a societal problem on the actions of an individual is simplistic and denies the complexity of dealing with a global and possible existential issue. For most, it's too big for an individual to meaningfully make an impression, and the gap between action and intention becomes a weakness that is exploited rather than addressed. For mine, it is the actions of a society that will determine our future, not the reductionist base cynicism of the likes of Bolt, Dean, and Jones etc.
In reading about the use of hypocrisy by conservative/consumerist/capitalist lobbyists I stumbled across this quote which I think sums up it up nicely;
"The best way to never be a hypocrite, and to always stay consistent, is to deny climate change, and have no agenda on anything beyond self-interest. Indeed, the more ardently you pursue your own interests, the more persuasively you live your own values. If, on the other hand, you have ambitions for large-scale change and believe things could be significantly better for vast numbers of people, you will always fail fully to embody your own hopes." Williams, Z. (2014, June 25). To target Greenpeace's flying director is to miss the point. The Guardian.
Sucks when you asked to back up a statement that was clearly just a shot from the hip.
You don't have experience of the young generation behaving differently to older generations when it comes to having what they want. They consume resources and leave as big a carbon footprint as the rest of us.
I think if you carry on about climate change but your not even prepared to turn your aircon off on a hot night to sleep your full of sh#t.
As for the Guardian claiming only self interested people are not hypocrites is complete rubbish. It's actually offensive and rather convenient for all the climate warriors who are suffering from a little climate guilt while scrolling on their new phone in an air-conditioned cafe. Many people live by their principles with zero self interest. Fred Hollows comes to mind as a great example.
My dog took a dump on the primary school oval. They have a sports carnival soon, so I looked around for a poo bag. But then I saw heaps of other dog **** in the park. So I went home.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Sucks when you asked to back up a statement that was clearly just a shot from the hip.
Sucks when you are an idiot.
(I spelled "you are" in full, because you haven't leaned about you're).
Select to expand quotecammd said..>>> Fred Hollows comes to mind as a great example.
Well there are saints, and there are ordinary people.
You don't expect everybody to be saints do you?
It's gratifying to see that explaining why the gap between intention and action occurs for humans, (when faced with a very large problem), only to find that the explanation causes offence to someone whose sole purpose is exploiting rather than addressing the issue. I think that is a fine example of the point I was trying to make.
On the other hand, it's a good thing I am a potato, otherwise I would feel embarrassed about asking for some clear instruction on what
"Sucks when you asked to back up a statement that was clearly just a shot from the hip." is actually about. Especially when I already said I didn't understand the request the first time.
Is there some requirement for me to name all the GenZ's I know and their achievements in walking the walk? That would seem a ridiculous request.
So is it something else? Or simply that when you have nothing of substance to offer, offence (by parroting Murdoch's puppets) is the best defence, so let's just go hard with a gattling gun of poo throwing?
Fangy you can be so eloquent at times.
I think we should leave this thread now, there's no more to be said!
Select to expand quotecammd said..fangman said..cammd said..
Turn the airconditioning up then, what's a couple of decades in the history of the earth.
Our children won't be thanking us for what we leave them.
I don't see any evidence from the youth of today making sacrifices to comfort or convenience in order to save the world. I don't believe they are any better or any worse than generations that have preceded them.
www.drive.com.au/news/most-popular-cars-in-each-australian-state-and-territory-in-2024/
Hilux was best selling car in WA ,I'm actually suprised as most young people I work with buy Rangers.
I don't think the request was anything close to naming all the individual Gen Z people you know and listing their personal traits out.
It was about a generalisation of societal generations and how they take consumerism comfort over environmental impact.
I took the point being made that the current younger generation, as a group, are making no more or less personnal comfort sacrifice than any generation that has come before. Not saying I agree or disagree, just that's how I understand the comment.
So it is more like is it evident that the younger generation are moving away from urban consumerism and returning to a more self sufficent rural lifestyle to reduce global impacts of human pollution ?
Or that the younger generation are moving to shun industrial era technology and returning to less impactful pre-1850 lifestyles more so than can be explained by general technological changes have occured in previous generations ?
Perhaps you could argue there is an awareness of global ramifications more so than previous generations, but otherwise what evidence of personnel sacrifice is there ?
Even in those two examples fangman gave, they may have sacrificed their current employment, but did that result in them becoming homeless and having to join a monastery, or has it resulted in a lifetime of having to work more for less in order to provide whatever gain was made ? or did they just go work somewhere else or do something else that gave them a better personnel outcome anyway, no particular personnel sacrifice made ?
edit : looks like Rango understands it the same way I did.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
My dog took a dump on the primary school oval. They have a sports carnival soon, so I looked around for a poo bag. But then I saw heaps of other dog **** in the park. So I went home.
Here is a great example.
In generations gone by people had dogs to round up sheep, or to guide them to act as their eyes, or to guard their goats from wolves or catch rabbits for dinner. Nobody took their handbag dogs to crap on the sports oval.
Now more and more people who live in urban settings have these poxy little yappy things that pass of as dogs. They take them out for 30 mins a day to crap on the sports oval, buy them doggy coats and spend thousands on them at the vets because they have bred-in unelvolutionary issues, and apparently this is all needed because these things are therapy dogs or psyciatric service animals or some such bollocks.
Remery's clear and unrefutable first hand evidence show the younger generation are not shunning CO2 and methane emitting designer-pets for the sake of world.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286901
"These hypotheses were inspired by the current climate movement and associated discourse, which is largely being led by younger activists and tends to blame older people for their inaction [5,9,31]."
5.Cloughton I. Global youth activism on climate change. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory. 2021;4.
9.Ayalon L, Keating N, Pillemer K, Rabheru K. Climate change and mental health of older people: A human rights imperative. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2021;29:1038-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2021.06.015. pmid:34294541
31.Ayalon L, Roy S, Aloni O, Keating N. A scoping review of research on older people and intergenerational relations in the context of climate change. The Gerontologist. 2022; doi: 10.1093/geront/gnac028. pmid:35188956
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..remery said..
My dog took a dump on the primary school oval. They have a sports carnival soon, so I looked around for a poo bag. But then I saw heaps of other dog **** in the park. So I went home.
Here is a great example.
In generations gone by people had dogs to round up sheep, or to guide them to act as their eyes, or to guard their goats from wolves or catch rabbits for dinner. Nobody took their handbag dogs to crap on the sports oval.
Now more and more people who live in urban settings have these poxy little yappy things that pass of as dogs. They take them out for 30 mins a day to crap on the sports oval, buy them doggy coats and spend thousands on them at the vets because they have bred-in unelvolutionary issues, and apparently this is all needed because these things are therapy dogs or psyciatric service animals or some such bollocks.
Remery's clear and unrefutable first hand evidence show the younger generation are not shunning CO2 and methane emitting designer-pets for the sake of world.
I think we should deport all our dogs to a poor country then there's no more poop on our grass .I'm suprised it has'nt already been done.
Oh! sorry it has.
Select to expand quoteRango said..cammd said..fangman said..cammd said..
Turn the airconditioning up then, what's a couple of decades in the history of the earth.
Our children won't be thanking us for what we leave them.
I don't see any evidence from the youth of today making sacrifices to comfort or convenience in order to save the world. I don't believe they are any better or any worse than generations that have preceded them.
www.drive.com.au/news/most-popular-cars-in-each-australian-state-and-territory-in-2024/
Hilux was best selling car in WA ,I'm actually suprised as most young people I work with buy Rangers.
In 2023 the approx sales numbers 73% of Rangers were sold into fleet ownership, Hilux is 65% . Given that both vehicles have a wide, predominately male, sales demographic, the actual sales to "young people" might need some refining of both age and gender. As it stands it does not really support cammd's assertion, rather it points to the problems of small sample size.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Even in those two examples fangman gave, they may have sacrificed their current employment, but did that result in them becoming homeless and having to join a monastery, or has it resulted in a lifetime of having to work more for less in order to provide whatever gain was made ? or did they just go work somewhere else or do something else that gave them a better personnel outcome anyway, no particular personnel sacrifice made ?
edit : looks like Rango understands it the same way I did.
Crikey if chucking in your job does not qualify for standing up for your principles and 'Walking the walk' I reckon you are setting a high bar. Personally if I was a journalist, and given that AI is writing an ever-increasing amount of content, the prospect of a sacrificing a decent paying job would not be done lightly.
Again, this goes to my point that it is really hard for an individual to make a difference against a global problem. It requires the commitment of a society who have an interest in ensuring we act as responsible guardians of this planet for the generations to come.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
..... led by younger activists and tends to blame older people for their inaction.
....and the paper is on :
The role of chronological age in climate change attitudes, feelings, and behavioral intentions
attitude, feelings and intentions.
Got anything on actual effort, or does that not count ?
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Crikey if chucking in your job does not qualify for standing up for your principles and 'Walking the walk' I reckon you are setting a high bar. Personally if I was a journalist, and given that AI is writing an ever-increasing amount of content, the prospect of a sacrificing a decent paying job would not be done lightly.
Again, this goes to my point that it is really hard for an individual to make a difference against a global problem. It requires the commitment of a society who have an interest in ensuring we act as responsible guardians of this planet for the generations to come.
Neither example you gave was a journalist. I doubt James Murdoch would have been staring down struggle street by resigning his position on one board. He was also 48 when he quit, so I am not sure he'd be in the "children" or even "younger generation" category.
I understood the original point to be that generationally, young people are making no significantly different sacrifies to combat climate change than previous generations have made.
Plenty of people old and young have quit their jobs on matters of principal or ethics. But I am still not seeing evidence that right now the younger generation, as a group in society, are making sacrifies in the name of climate change, over and above what any other generation has done in the past.
Plenty of young people still work for right-wing press pumping out the same, if not even more, extreme views. It isn't a dying industry because they can't find new recruits to work for them. Would you say that the press of today is tending to more liberal, more leftwing, more editiorial freedom and acceptance of alternate views than in the past ? or the complete opposite ?
I'm calling it - cammd's hypothesis is..... credible.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
I'm calling it - cammd's hypothesis is..... credible.
Hmm. Cammd provides a statistically insignificant sample size of anecdotal evidence of a generational behaviour (of which he is not a member). Carantoc calls it credible.
This sort of logic is straight out of Pcdefender's Playbook on "Dealing with Pesky Sciency facts and stuff when it doesn't fit your world view"
LOL
And yes, my bad Emily Townsend is not a journalist, but her sentiment and actions are still valid. As are James Murdoch's protest at his father's lack of moral compass. You can get written out of your Dad's considerably big Will if you don't toe the line. You might also remember that at the start of my original post I said I wasn't sure what cammd actually wanted an example of; I just supplied a couple of examples of people who walked the walk that readers might relate and remember.
But if we are talking significant sample groups, this slightly bigger sample of over 22k Gen Z's in 44 countries reported that;
Environmental sustainability remains a top concern for Gen Zs and millennials, with 62% of
Gen Zs and 59% of millennials reporting feeling anxious or worried about climate change
in the past month. Both generations actively take measures to limit their environmental
impact. They want governments to push businesses to take more climate action, and
businesses to help consumers make more sustainable choices. Protecting the environment
is the societal challenge which respondents feel businesses have the greatest opportunity
and influence to drive change on. This is reflected in Gen Zs' and millennials' career decisions
and their consumer behaviours. Two in 10 Gen Zs and millennials have already changed jobs
or industries to better align their work with their environmental values, with another quarter
of both cohorts planning to do so in the future. They also actively research the
environmental practices of companies they purchase from and are willing to pay
more for sustainable products.
www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-shared/docs/campaigns/2024/deloitte-2024-genz-millennial-survey.pdf?dlva=1
Maybe they don't meet the bar of 'walking the walk' set by others, but it sure beat the nihilistic cynicism of denial being posted as a reasonable alternative for our future.
Just a point here, Becoming a ludite is not going to happen. I think it's a fallacy we have to give up technology and return to a pre industrial life style.
We have to be more focused and clever about what and how we use technology.
Yes fossil fuel is immensely important, so important we shouldn't be burning it!
So for a start think of a way to wean people off, their huge unnecessary vehicles.
Stop designing buildings for fashion, and design for energy efficiency instead. Just look at all the black roofs around, and you'll see how much we can improve.
And somehow shut up the climate change deniers with all their misinformation and negative spin.
Absolutely decrepit, couldn't agree more.
But I understood the claim was our children will curse what we left them, yet the point being there is no evidence they are doing anything significantly different.
Remery pointed out they are just feeling things or have an attitude and intend to do things while the blaming the older generation, but apparently not actually changing much.
And it not a matter of simply not changing, it is about changing the rate of change,
We can build better buildings and drive smaller cars now. Some people do, both young and old. But some young and some old have always have done so.
The younger generation aren't, as a generational shift, knocking down all the crappy buildings and building better ones, They are paying more and more money for the old rubbish and building the same new rubbish we have built, in ever growing suburban sprawls. The average floor area of new houses has climeb steadily from about 150 m2 in the early 1980s to 240 m2 now. There hasn't been a generational shift to more efficient buidlings, in fact the young of today want the extra bathroom, the home cinema and the sunken bar area. The only thing they have given up to get it is the garden and CO2 absorbing lawn.
For sure some young people are driving small cars and some are building better buildings. But some old generations built better buildings. There doesn't seem to be significant change the ratio of people doing it.
The trend isn't much different. Slow and steady continues. Mass personnal sacrifice for the good of the environment isn't happening by young people.
But then again what generation has ever thanked the one that came before it ? They have always been to blame for the woes of younger one.
www.newscientist.com/article/2463480-2024-confirmed-as-first-year-to-breach-1-5c-warming-limit/
So we can be objective and figure where we can cut back.
Electricity and heat. Australia is currently at 34% renewable. We should be able to get to 100% by 2050. So you can scrub out the light blue section.
Transport, well if we didn't drive around in unnecessarily large cars and we got about town in a renewably charged ev there's a good bit of that gone. But they don't yet make evs to tow the retiree's caravans on laps of the country, and apart from Elon, not much progress on electric semis.
Manufacture, I suppose that's to make our evs, are steel works making much progress on non-carbon production? Construction - that includes the concrete to make the roads and bridges to drive evs on.
Agriculture - can we feed 8 billion without it?
Fugitive emissions ? Leaks.
Industry- How's that differ from manufacture?
Aviation. Battery powered planes can't fly far. Some university determined 9% of emissions are due to the tourism industry. Does travel to a sailing location count as tourism?
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-11/tourism-air-travel-carbon-emissions-surge-environment/104701158
Can't see us cutting back by more than 50% by 2050. That will lower the trajectory of the Keeling curve but it'll still be going up.
www.co2.earth/daily-co2#:~:text=This%20table%20presents%20the%20latest%2C%20daily%20average%20reading,we%20can%20expect%20global%20average%20temperature%20to%20follow.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Absolutely decrepit, couldn't agree more.
But I understood the claim was our children will curse what we left them, yet the point being there is no evidence they are doing anything significantly different.
Remery pointed out they are just feeling things or have an attitude and intend to do things while the blaming the older generation, but apparently not actually changing much.
And it not a matter of simply not changing, it is about changing the rate of change,
We can build better buildings and drive smaller cars now. Some people do, both young and old. But some young and some old have always have done so.
The younger generation aren't, as a generational shift, knocking down all the crappy buildings and building better ones, They are paying more and more money for the old rubbish and building the same new rubbish we have built, in ever growing suburban sprawls. The average floor area of new houses has climeb steadily from about 150 m2 in the early 1980s to 240 m2 now. There hasn't been a generational shift to more efficient buidlings, in fact the young of today want the extra bathroom, the home cinema and the sunken bar area. The only thing they have given up to get it is the garden and CO2 absorbing lawn.
For sure some young people are driving small cars and some are building better buildings. But some old generations built better buildings. There doesn't seem to be significant change the ratio of people doing it.
The trend isn't much different. Slow and steady continues. Mass personnal sacrifice for the good of the environment isn't happening by young people.
But then again what generation has ever thanked the one that came before it ? They have always been to blame for the woes of younger one.
I agree with most of the opinions, it's just the facts get in the way sometimes. According to auto marketing people trying to flog new cars, Gen Z show a preference for smaller, more compact vehicles compared to previous generations. This due to economic factors, urban lifestyles, environmental values, and tech innovation.
As for housing, I suspect GenZ is just buying what the housing market dictates they can afford and not able to dictate terms to the developers.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
www.newscientist.com/article/2463480-2024-confirmed-as-first-year-to-breach-1-5c-warming-limit/
So we can be objective and figure where we can cut back.
Electricity and heat. Australia is currently at 34% renewable. We should be able to get to 100% by 2050. So you can scrub out the light blue section.
Transport, well if we didn't drive around in unnecessarily large cars and we got about town in a renewably charged ev there's a good bit of that gone. But they don't yet make evs to tow the retiree's caravans on laps of the country, and apart from Elon, not much progress on electric semis.
Manufacture, I suppose that's to make our evs, are steel works making much progress on non-carbon production? Construction - that includes the concrete to make the roads and bridges to drive evs on.
Agriculture - can we feed 8 billion without it?
Fugitive emissions ? Leaks.
Industry- How's that differ from manufacture?
Aviation. Battery powered planes can't fly far. Some university determined 9% of emissions are due to the tourism industry. Does travel to a sailing location count as tourism?
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-11/tourism-air-travel-carbon-emissions-surge-environment/104701158
Can't see us cutting back by more than 50% by 2050. That will lower the trajectory of the Keeling curve but it'll still be going up.
www.co2.earth/daily-co2#:~:text=This%20table%20presents%20the%20latest%2C%20daily%20average%20reading,we%20can%20expect%20global%20average%20temperature%20to%20follow.
www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-09-05/the-energy-historian-who-says-rapid-decarbonization-is-a-fantasy
Be interesting to plot the last 29 COPs on that curve .
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Hmm. Cammd provides a statistically insignificant sample size of anecdotal evidence of a generational behaviour (of which he is not a member). Carantoc calls it credible.
This sort of logic is straight out of Pcdefender's Playbook on "Dealing with Pesky Sciency facts and stuff when it doesn't fit your world view"
LOL
And yes, my bad Emily Townsend is not a journalist, but her sentiment and actions are still valid. As are James Murdoch's protest at his father's lack of moral compass. You can get written out of your Dad's considerably big Will if you don't toe the line. You might also remember that at the start of my original post I said I wasn't sure what cammd actually wanted an example of; I just supplied a couple of examples of people who walked the walk that readers might relate and remember.
But if we are talking significant sample groups, this slightly bigger sample of over 22k Gen Z's in 44 countries reported that;
Environmental sustainability remains a top concern for Gen Zs and millennials, with 62% of
Gen Zs and 59% of millennials reporting feeling anxious or worried about climate change
in the past month. Both generations actively take measures to limit their environmental
impact. They want governments to push businesses to take more climate action, and
businesses to help consumers make more sustainable choices. Protecting the environment
is the societal challenge which respondents feel businesses have the greatest opportunity
and influence to drive change on. This is reflected in Gen Zs' and millennials' career decisions
and their consumer behaviours. Two in 10 Gen Zs and millennials have already changed jobs
or industries to better align their work with their environmental values, with another quarter
of both cohorts planning to do so in the future. They also actively research the
environmental practices of companies they purchase from and are willing to pay
more for sustainable products.
www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-shared/docs/campaigns/2024/deloitte-2024-genz-millennial-survey.pdf?dlva=1
Maybe they don't meet the bar of 'walking the walk' set by others, but it sure beat the nihilistic cynicism of denial being posted as a reasonable alternative for our future.
I looked at a bunch of scientific papers that highlighted how the vast majority of young people (around 96 percent) are very concerned about climate change. No surprise, given that they, like China and India, had little to do with creating the impending global disaster.
But Cammd's typically vague, citationless assertion seemed to have something to do with what young people were actually doing about the problem they are faced with.
Sadly, I couldn't immediately find anything empirical, and I know how much Carrotop likes to see empirical data, (despite his inability to effectively analyse and/or conclude anything useful from it). However, I'm happy to keep looking.
That was 2022, nothing much has changed. The energy historian's last paragraph is still true today.
"But so far, we are not even seriously trying - see the ascent of SUVs, the pervasiveness of excessive flying, and food supermarkets that now average 40,000 items. That all requires plenty of carbon."
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
And somehow shut up the climate change deniers with all their misinformation and negative spin.
The climate change deniers are typically low-IQ individuals who are told what to think by conservative media. We have been through this previously when Marlboro Cigarettes were one of the richest, possibly the richest, company in America. The fossil fuel industry is using exactly the same technique to "buy time". In fact, its no surprise that the fossily fuel industry is using the same media spin people to convince low-IQ individuals that CO2, like Tobacco, is good for them. Sadly half of Australia has an IQ below 100.
Select to expand quoteremery said..decrepit said..
And somehow shut up the climate change deniers with all their misinformation and negative spin.
The climate change deniers are typically low-IQ individuals who are told what to think by conservative media. We have been through this previously when Marlboro Cigarettes were one of the richest, possibly the richest, company in America. The fossil fuel industry is using exactly the same technique to "buy time". In fact, its no surprise that the fossily fuel industry is using the same media spin people to convince low-IQ individuals that CO2, like Tobacco, is good for them. Sadly half of Australia has an IQ below 100.
Hasn't China pushed the 100 IQ point such that a little more than half Aussies have an IQ <100 ?
Select to expand quotefangman said..
I agree with most of the opinions, it's just the facts get in the way sometimes. According to auto marketing people trying to flog new cars, Gen Z show a preference for smaller, more compact vehicles compared to previous generations. This due to economic factors, urban lifestyles, environmental values, and tech innovation.
As for housing, I suspect GenZ is just buying what the housing market dictates they can afford and not able to dictate terms to the developers.
When I was in my early 20's I drove V8 muscle car that used 20 L/100km and did 0-100 in under 7 seconds.
Today most 20 year old petrol-heads drive a hot hatch that uses 7 L/100km and does 0-100 in under 5 seconds.
And Remery's grandfather drove the class leading 2.9L in-line four cylinder that did 20 mpg and maxed out at 42 mph.
Yep, good to see we all finally agree.
Just as many rev heads these days as ever, and they are still buying the fastest cars they can reasonably afford, irrespective of less polluting models being available.
www.forbes.com.au/covers/innovation/miss-americas-nuclear-bombshell-for-australia/
She did'nt have to try to hard to convince me.
Select to expand quoteremery said..fangman said..
I agree with most of the opinions, it's just the facts get in the way sometimes. According to auto marketing people trying to flog new cars, Gen Z show a preference for smaller, more compact vehicles compared to previous generations. This due to economic factors, urban lifestyles, environmental values, and tech innovation.
As for housing, I suspect GenZ is just buying what the housing market dictates they can afford and not able to dictate terms to the developers.
When I was in my early 20's I drove V8 muscle car that used 20 L/100km and did 0-100 in under 7 seconds.
Today most 20 year old petrol-heads drive a hot hatch that uses 7 L/100km and does 0-100 in under 5 seconds.
And they drive them around all night going no particular place...... trying to reduce emissions I suspect.
