Jump to content

What should be done... about climate change


Rippounet

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Climate change will be resolved. By technological advances. In about 20 years. That’s my prediction. In the meantime focus on paying off your mortgage.

It's nice to see how superior to a child's your arguments are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one WANTS global warming. But not everyone is willing to reduce their quality of life to prevent the 2 degree doomsday prophecy.

Climate change will be resolved. By technological advances. In about 20 years. That’s my prediction. In the meantime focus on paying off your mortgage.

It's not a binary wherein it either is resolved, or isn't. It's a continuous scale of damage,  and plenty of damage will be done within those twenty years. Likely irreparable damage. We have the technology to start making major changes now, but the major decision makers choose not to. This is not a technological problem, it's a political one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a graph showing human deaths from natural disasters since 1900. It has steadily come down until it is now lower than ever. 

That’s thanks to technological advances, despite those advances contributing at least indirectly to climate change over the same period. There are less people in poverty today than 100 years ago. Again, thanks to technological and industrial progress. And yes, a side effect of this progress was climate change.

But the benefits outweigh the negatives. And will continue to do so, as technology continues to advance and we gradually shift to a sustainable energy system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said before. Tesla is at the point where their cars are better than internal combustion cars. The price point just needs to drop by maybe another 20-30% and there will be no reason why all cars can’t be electric. By all means, ban internal combustion engines as soon as their price point crosses that threshold. Massive impact on reducing carbon emissions without reducing anyone’s quality of life.

Same with power generation. Replace coal with solar and nuclear. Those are real actions that can save the world. Not blaming people for wanting to drive an SUV, live in the suburbs, eat meat and take their family on a holiday every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

It's not a binary wherein it either is resolved, or isn't. It's a continuous scale of damage,  and plenty of damage will be done within those twenty years. Likely irreparable damage. We have the technology to start making major changes now, but the major decision makers choose not to. This is not a technological problem, it's a political one.

What do you want the political solution to mean to the average guy? Higher fuel prices? Higher meat prices? Higher airline ticket prices? Taxes on living in a suburb vs in an inner city? 

I can see why people don’t buy into your vision, if so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at thinking 2C of warming is a "doomsday" prophecy, you need to update your propaganda. 2C is realistically our best case scenario absent every politician on the planet suddenly ignoring people like you. 2C is going to be realised within my life time and I'm not even one of these kids, if we continue on the path you activate we genuinely run the risk of the doomsday/kill ourselves scenario you think is so laughable.

The support systems of the biosphere are looking fragile and there's a *lot* of damage that's already happened and is continuing in the back ground that we don't even know to worry about. It's a cascade.

As to that last part - Americans have the cheapest petrol in the Western world yet some seem to think that any kind of price increase is utterly unacceptable AND using vehicles that might reduce that petrol consumption - potentially costing less even with higher petrol prices - is also utterly unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What do you want the political solution to mean to the average guy? Higher fuel prices? Higher meat prices? Higher airline ticket prices? Taxes on living in a suburb vs in an inner city? 

I can see why people don’t buy into your vision.

I'm not a policy expert, and way smarter people than me have got ideas around all of these things. I will say that all of these things will need to be either drastically limited in some way, but I reject the premise that it can only be brought about through price mechanisms. Fuel and suburbs/inner city can both potentially be addressed, for example, through better infrastructure and urban planning.

I also think that climate change policy has to go hand in hand with economic justice policy. We can't accept a world in which a small cabal of haves get to enjoy pre-crisis luxuries whilst the rest live in squalor. So maybe meat becomes vastly more expensive to reflect it's true cost. But other food can be subsidised, or even provided as a public service, so that no one is pushed further into poverty. Maybe fuel is both more expensive, or even rationed, but free public transport is available to all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not blaming people for wanting to drive an SUV, live in the suburbs, eat meat and take their family on a holiday every year.

I don't blame individuals and their individual desires. I blame the political and corporate institutions that have so thoroughly abrogated any responsibility for their large-scale actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I'm not a policy expert, and way smarter people than me have got ideas around all of these things. I will say that all of these things will need to be either drastically limited in some way, but I reject the premise that it can only be brought about through price mechanisms. Fuel and suburbs/inner city can both potentially be addressed, for example, through better infrastructure and urban planning.

I also think that climate change policy has to go hand in hand with economic justice policy. We can't accept a world in which a small cabal of haves get to enjoy pre-crisis luxuries whilst the rest live in squalor. So maybe meat becomes vastly more expensive to reflect it's true cost. But other food can be subsidised, or even provided as a public service, so that no one is pushed further into poverty. Maybe fuel is both more expensive, or even rationed, but free public transport is available to all.

 

Divorce it from the “social justice” bandwagon and a lot more so called “haves” might buy into it.

If someone approached me with a genuine solution to address climate change that isn’t just a disguised form of progressive tax/redistribution of wealth I would be far more open to it. And I’m not even wealthy, just middle class.

That’s why Tesla excites me so much. A way to live and enjoy life while also saving the planet. A win-win outcome.

And I suspect that’s also why Tesla gets surprisingly muted support from the left wing who should be rejoicing at their progress. Because they present a way to save the climate without also redistributing wealth, or cramming everyone into egalitarian trains and buses.

Can’t have those middle class “haves” with a bit of money continuing to drive high performance cars, even if the cars are electric. Nope, we need to “Bernie Sanders” the lot of them and force them to ride on the subway with the rest of us. In the name of saving the climate, of course. And take their meat away while we’re at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one WANTS global warming. But not everyone is willing to reduce their quality of life to prevent the 2 degree doomsday prophecy.

Climate change will be resolved. By technological advances. In about 20 years. That’s my prediction. In the meantime focus on paying off your mortgage.

Your prediction doesnt mean shit, like who the fuck are you?. And we allready now that you are not willing to do anything becous you are sooo rational, soo cool, and collected. And we know that you dont think the poeple who are going to suffer more are sub human. You are not the logical being that you think you are, you are not the voice of reason. I hope some day youll realize this and die of shame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I don't blame individuals and their individual desires. I blame the political and corporate institutions that have so thoroughly abrogated any responsibility for their large-scale actions.

BTW, this is literally the entire point of the Climate Strike and Thunberg's UN speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Your prediction doesnt mean shit, like who the fuck are you?. And we allready now that you are not willing to do anything becous you are sooo rational, soo cool, and collected. And we know that you dont think the poeple who are going to suffer more are sub human. You are not the logical being that you think you are, you are not the voice of reason. I hope some day youll realize this and die of shame. 

Too emotional.

Fact is, transport and power generation represent the vast majority of carbon emissions. Electric vehicles and large scale battery systems coupled with solar power generation addresses this category almost completely.  In the next 20 years this will largely replace fossil fuel alternatives. But in the interim the problem will remain, although hopefully gradually reducing over time. Thats reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one WANTS global warming. But not everyone is willing to reduce their quality of life to prevent the 2 degree doomsday prophecy.

Climate change will be resolved. By technological advances. In about 20 years. That’s my prediction. In the meantime focus on paying off your mortgage.

We don't have 20 years. The oceans are rising and losing oxygen AS WE SPEAK. So your dismissive prediction means JACK SHIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That’s why Tesla excites me so much. A way to live and enjoy life while also saving the planet. A win-win outcome.

Strange assumption that living and enjoying life are incompatible with climate action. I...don't even know how to respond to it, because I don't see how the argument follows.

In any case, I'll be very happy to see a major increase in the prevalence of electric cars and the phasing out of combustion engines. But it won't be enough. Not even close.

 

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And I suspect that’s also why Tesla gets surprisingly muted support from the left wing who should be rejoicing at their progress.

I don't want to get too off-topic. But Tesla gets muted support from the left wing becuse the left wing is generally opposed to unaccountable corporations and billionaires. Tesla might prove useful in mitigating climate change, and that will be good. It still represents fundamentally unjust power structures, and that's bad. It doesn't have to be total support or total villification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Child activists are a bit of a joke. Their brains aren’t fully developed and they are heavily influenced by what the adults around them have fed into their minds.

Greta should therefore not be taken too seriously.

I have a conservative coworker (actually, most of the office leans conservative, but he's one I can talk to). He sort of subscribes to climate change, mostly because the weather here (Alaska) has been abnormal these past six or eight years in particular.  Extremely mild winters, summers with record breaking high temperatures.

 

Yesterday morning he was really, truly rattled by Greta's UN speech (I'm guessing he caught a Fox News clip).  First thing he brought up was her lack of civility.  

 

I told him we had a president who didn't know the meaning of the word 'civility.'

 

He goes, 'yeah, that's right, but Trump is different.  He's an adult.'

 

I told him Trump's lack of civility has cost him big time.

 

He then goes on about how Greta came across as 'brainwashed' and how 'she should be in school.' (and there are multiple similar comments from conservatives in comment sections to various internet articles) 

 

I told him Greta was highly educated for her age, and her statements, while blunt, lined up with the actual science.  (also brought up in comments to said articles.)

 

At that point he say, 'well, the scientists are wrong.' He left on his route literally chanting 'four more years' under his breath.

 

Talked with him again at days end (rare, we usually don't see each other till the next day).  He'd apparently been listening to some conservative radio and had latched onto the notion that Greta was 'brain damaged' or 'mentally ill'  (maybe somebody here has a clue what right wing screwball he was listening to, but it doesn't matter.)  He couldn't pronounce it correctly, but it was Asperger's, a variant of autism.  Told him that I have a couple of younger autistic quasi-relatives , and while that probably accounted for the perceived 'insensitivity,' it did not affect her reasoning skills.  (story of the autistic ten year old quasi relative who tackled and correctly solved his mothers 2nd year college algebra homework and explained to her where she'd screwed up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DMC said:

Right, this is definitely the motto that ensures substantive change.

Yes, don’t try actively try to do accomplish anything because the problem would just sort itself. It makes sense if you don’t think about it.

12 hours ago, karaddin said:

As to that last part - Americans have the cheapest petrol in the Western world yet some seem to think that any kind of price increase is utterly unacceptable AND using vehicles that might reduce that petrol consumption - potentially costing less even with higher petrol prices - is also utterly unacceptable.

But What about the Chinese? How could Americans be expected to change their habits when they’re around? They aren’t trying to actively do anything so why should we? 

 Except they’ve been trying to combat more than the recent American administration has; https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1W906Y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But What about the Chinese? How could Americans be expected to change their habits when they’re around? They aren’t trying to actively do anything so why should we? 

 Except they’ve been trying to combat more than the recent American administration has; https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1W906Y

You'd think the whole "they are actually taking steps" would be the achilles heel of the "But whatabout China?" refrain, but reality just bounces straight off that mindset

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Too emotional.

You’ve given nothing to actually lay the groundwork for why anyone on this board should take your predictions seriously. 

You feel that technology would simply advance enough in 20 years to where it won’t be a problem. You’ve given no peer-scientific study that supports your prediction just this vague allusions that they are.

You are either willfully ignoring the facts that many places would either be displaced die because of it, or simply don’t care.

Florida is expected to pay 77billion dollars over this to try to avoid going under water. Island nations who don’t have the resources of a rich nation behind them are literally already sinking.

20 years even if your prediction(which you’ve given no hardcore data to substantiate) was true is too late for many.  

You do not want to ride public transit. You do not want to buy an electric car till it’s cheaper than your current car. Your complaints do not appear to be motivated by fear of your life or vital to avoid poverty but out of a sense such things wouldn’t be as comfortable or prestigious as you’d like. 

These are quite frankly childish and quite frankly selfish complaints for one to raise. 

As if the discussion shouldn’t be just be centered towards how address climate change in the best possible way to avoid the deaths and displacement of millions but how address climate change in a way that won’t inconvenience the not poors even in the slightest of things. “I want to enjoy my luxuries in full; cater to ME, MY fun, is the pressing thing here.”

16 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Those that care at least.

So obviously not the majority of the right-wing in America who deny the problem’s existence in the first place. 

16 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not the third world masses who will burn down every forest in sight for a patch of land to grow some food just to feed themselves

Yes, how selfish these savages  are for wanting to eat to live. Seriously though Africa is per-capita and in total is a smaller contributor to Climate Change than the US. Latin America contribute less to the US too and has continued  to has try to reduce its carbon footprint :https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/13/signifys-latin-american-operations-now-carbon-neutral/

But really the upper/middle class of the Rich US shouldn’t be expected to deal try to use public transit(and mingle with the poors)  or cut back on flying. 

 

16 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one WANTS global warming. But not everyone is willing to reduce their quality of life to prevent the 2 degree doomsday prophecy.

Climate change will be resolved. By technological advances. In about 20 years. That’s my prediction. In the meantime focus on paying off your mortgage.

Actually answer the question. Who is the “we” in this scenario? Because plenty of people don’t have decades to deal with adverse affects of climate change. 

Paying off their mortgage isn’t going to be that big of an issue to them because they have no homes. 

So who is “we” in this scenario?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

You'd think the whole "they are actually taking steps" would be the achilles heel of the "But whatabout China?" refrain, but reality just bounces straight off that mindset

I’ve seen some immediately then go “what about India?” Utterly ignoring the fact even that even powerful  right-wing politicos of India  have come out in favor immediate(as in right the fuck now), government, actions to address climate change;https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/pm-narendra-modi-highlights-indias-climate-change-action-at-un-summit-1602363-2019-09-23

Literally every country on earth could change their habits to try to combat this issue and the American right-wingers/conservatives who cry “what about x country” would simply shrug and say “well if everyone else is addressing the issue no reason we have to”. 

It really doesn’t matter what others are doing or sacrificing. All that matters is they get to keep a few select comforts in their daily life. What matters is them not having to give up any of the things that brings them bring them joy no matter how destructive their behavior is to everyone else or how much they don’t need those things to thrive. 

 

 

GRRM made a pretty decent book(well collection of short stories), that showcased the problemwith these “someone else should fix it attitude” or “why should I be inconvenienced” attitudes. It’s called Tuf Voyaging. It’s about a man whose come in possession of a extremely powerful biological warship traveling through space. One of the central conflicts of his journey is Tuf trying to get the people of a country-planet to slow down on making babies because their home is overpopulated and quickly reaching the point where mass starvation. The most practical and immediate solutions are off the table because it would intrude into the way of life the people had grown accustomed-they also believe that breeding would eventually lead their race to be gods.  Tuf in exchange for aid in repairing his ship, offer to help the people in their troubles. They agree but Tuf makes perfectly clear they(particularly government) need to attempt  systemic changes in their society, how the typical person lives must change. They refuse. With the full expectation that someone would bail them out before it got too bad. And Tuf does. He stresses each time what he’s offering is a temporary fix at best. They never learn. They do not alter their lifestyles, government refuses to push out contraceptives or discourage unprotected sex.

It comes to a point where the people either have to drastically curb their birth rates or literally invade other planets to accommodate their vast population. A galactic war would inconvenience Tuf. And at this point the only feasible way Tuf could reduce the birth rates of the people is to trick them into eating a food that severely influences their reproductivity. The longer they waited, the more extreme the actions had to be to address the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...