Jump to content
Rippounet

What should be done... about climate change

Recommended Posts

Here's an interview with the guy who looked at current climate solutions and figured out which ones are the best. Refrigerant management wins! (the whu with the huh? A/C is bad and you should feel bad)

Interesting that eating more plant based food is a big deal, and interesting that educating women and girls and having planned parenthood is a massive win. 

Also interesting to me is that none of these solutions, even combined, come close to meeting goals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to mention this, guess I'll put it here.  I went to the one of the Climate Strike rallies yesterday (in Pittsburgh), and it was a pretty impressive turnout.  I've never been much for protests and am usually skeptical of their potential efficacy - which will happen when your formative experiences with protests were the 2000 recount and 2003 Iraq War.  But I gotta say I was really encouraged seeing so many young people (some almost too young) not only passionate but taking the initiative on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2019 at 12:18 PM, ThinkerX said:

That said, the logical extension of 'Climate Change is a Libtard Hoax,' is going to be 'Libtards deliberately caused Climate Change to ram their socialist one world agenda down our throats,' accompanied by demands that liberals 'turn off' said climate change.  Schemes like the 'Green New Deal' are automatically off the table, of course.

Sure. Massive migration will inevitably happen and any attempts to aid in this travesty that involves letting people in will inevitably lead to screeching, and crying about how this isn’t America’s fault(even though they’re one of the world’s biggest contributors to Climate change), and how these immigrants don’t have sufficient American/Western values(which will never be heavily elaborated on-just mushing of how Americans like freedom and cheeseburgers and other nice things) and blaming the people trying to not die for their suffering such as saying “if you(black/brown) people didn’t have so many kids you wouldn’t be in such dire straights. It’s a good thing you’re dying world’s too overpopulated(with non-white people)” 

It is to think of so many people be guns hoe about America committing regime change with the justification of it needing to save millions from suffering, and then be vehemently against actually granting sanctuary to those fleeing an American made catastrophe.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

“if you(black/brown) people didn’t have so many kids you wouldn’t be in such dire straights. It’s a good thing you’re dying world’s too overpopulated(with non-white people)”

No need to sugarcoat it. It's not just that climate change will fuel ethno-nationalism/neo-fascism. The logical conclusion of ethno-nationalism/neo-fascism is also that climate change will end up being a good thing. The competition between individuals, nations, or "civilizations" that is at the heart of many (if not most) right-wing ideologies will look favorably on global warming sooner rather than later.
It's not just that such callous cynicism will end up condoning crimes against humanity, it also means that even if humanity pulls through, the survivors will have to deal with the weight of such crimes. The two world wars, the holocaust, and the mass destruction enabled by technology that culminated in the mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were traumatic enough. The climate wars will engender a form of collective guilt that will be crushing.
Though of course, perhaps it is the only thing that can save humanity in the very long-run... But for the soul of mankind we must nonetheless endeavor to prove we are better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The climate wars will engender a form of collective guilt that will be crushing.

Maybe and maybe not. The kind of guilt that you speak is relatively new. The vast majority of history consists of various groups slaughtering and/or enslaving other groups and while individuals may have felt some guilt (or maybe not; we have relatively few records on this score), the groups were quite vocal in celebrating these actions. In fact, even today, the guilt is specific to certain cultures and far from universal even within these cultures. I am not sure of this, but I believe it to be a cultural luxury enabled by unprecedented prosperity and so I think it's much more likely to fade away than intensify should the worst case scenarios come to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "guilt" is far too "distributed" to work. For an atomic bomb or a death camp you could name authors or at least nations who were responsible. (And as has been pointed out certain nations/groups deal with clearly attributable atrocities in quite different ways as everybody knows but for some reasons hardly ever bothers to mention.)

But almost everybody (and therefore nobody) would be "responsible" (in the vague and indirect sense of contributing to climate change aka living a normal western lifestyle) if a drought or flood gets worse because of climate change than usual and 100k people die instead of only 10k. As for wars, there is no more obviously just war than the one fought defending your home and your family. It's almost irrelevant if the attackers are fleeing from flood or fire, they are aggressors and you are the defender.

Furthermore, almost all mainstream parties and factions in Western countries seem mostly fine with aggressive wars to secure resources/access etc. in distant regions under thin pretense. These wars are clearly unjust (compared to home defense) and de facto supported and sustained by most liberal/leftist parties. So we are fine with unjust wars, why should we have qualms with justifiable home defense?

Edited by Jo498

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the solutions for phasing out older, highly polluting yet cheap processes require high investments in new technologies. I'm very concerned that patents and other form of IP would make them unaffordable for developing countries and thus preventing them to well develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Altherion said:

Maybe and maybe not. The kind of guilt that you speak is relatively new. The vast majority of history consists of various groups slaughtering and/or enslaving other groups and while individuals may have felt some guilt (or maybe not; we have relatively few records on this score), the groups were quite vocal in celebrating these actions. In fact, even today, the guilt is specific to certain cultures and far from universal even within these cultures. I am not sure of this, but I believe it to be a cultural luxury enabled by unprecedented prosperity and so I think it's much more likely to fade away than intensify should the worst case scenarios come to pass.

I don't think we're talking about the same type or level of guilt here. This wouldn't be guilt over some very specific historical offenses committed by one's ancestors or nation. We'd be talking about:
- Guilt over destroying our planet's environment and making huge swathes of it uninhabitable because of individual and corporate greed (themselves stemming from the consumer society and non-traditional forms of capitalism).
- Survivor's guilt and grief. Even in states that do not fail and societies that do not collapse, the death toll linked to global warming could still be horrendous. Just think of the heat waves in Australia in the next decades!
- Guilt over modern means of pillaging resources and waging warfare. While it was common to celebrate victory or domination over enemies or "others" when you had to confront and kill them face to face, war progressively became less glorified with the advent of modern technology. Machine guns in the American Civil War, artillery and gas in World War I, massive bombings and atomic weapons in World War II... Weapons of mass destruction remain highly controversial today, and the modern media can incite massive awareness and guilt over remote events... You'd need massive censorship for people not to feel guilty about living comfortably through the next century.

Yes, it's still relative to culture, and I agree that should even the most developed nations be on the brink of collapse the guilt would temporarily fade away. My point is that the survivors would eventually feel that guilt once prosperity came back... several centuries later.

Of course, you could say that's not a given and that people could simply see themselves as the "better" humans while looking down on the societies that didn't make it. But in that case, wouldn't that mean... the victory of fascism? Genuine question here. A humanity that would not be crushed by guilt over global warming could hardly be considered humane...

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

This "guilt" is far too "distributed" to work.

I beg to differ. The Swedes already have a term describing the shame of flying because of the massive carbon footprint (flygskam) , many people in the West are going vegetarian or vegan because of environmental awareness. Even conservative-minded folks show willingness to switch to electric cars and LED lighting...
And global warming is still in its infancy. This is nothing. By the time we are hit with the full force of global warming anyone publicly using a combustion engine will probably suffer insults and worse - though it will no doubt become illegal at some point.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

Furthermore, almost all mainstream parties and factions in Western countries seem mostly fine with aggressive wars to secure resources/access etc. in distant regions under thin pretense. These wars are clearly unjust (compared to home defense) and de facto supported and sustained by most liberal/leftist parties. So we are fine with unjust wars, why should we have qualms with justifiable home defense?

This is misleading. Very few wars are openly about securing or pillaging resources. The Gulf Wars for instance were always officially described as being waged in the name of democracy and self-defense. We are not yet at the point when any major political party or faction can openly advocate for military competition over resources.
And my point is that while this point will no doubt come eventually in some places, it will leave people with a profound sense of guilt after the fact. Think of the way some feel guilty about nationalism and ethno-nationalism, colonialism and slavery, materialism and consumerism... and then raise that by several orders of magnitude.

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that psychotherapists might become busy. But a lot of this is lipservice and affects only very few people, probably often overly sensitive or with pre-conditions. Look at # and sales of cars in the last 20 years, look at # of flight miles etc. and nobody will believe that such curves will suddenly turn around, they might get less steep but even if the become flat we are a very long way from a turnaround. It is socially and economically impossible. Everything that is happening right now is actually strengthening this impression for me despite lip service to the contrary.

I grew up in German "hereditary guilt culture" (although for some reason it was different in the 1980s, probably because of more first hand contact with grandparents who only remembered their suffering in the war, not what they were responsible for) and I think it is absurd to feel personal guilt for things that my grandfather was to some extent (if only by not dying as a martyr to prevent them) responsible for. This hand has been overplayed and we already feel a rightwing backlash. And here we are dealing with very concrete atrocities where we can name names.

I think it is downright pathological to feel guilt for more distant or more general historical conditions like slavery. This existed since the dawn of time and we might as well be proud that "we" (western European nations in the last 200 years) were almost the only civilization that abolished and fought slavery. Although this pride would be silly as well because *I* didn't risk any wealth, health or career by supporting abolition. (And of course we still had and have and support conditions not so much better than slavery.) Do all what you can to fight slavery and similar conditions NOW but don't waste any guilt about distant history. History was what it was and it was brutal most of the time, but that's the snow of the last millenium.

And the same applies to people feeling guilt for what they think of as simply living their lives and doing their jobs. Nobody who is not somewhat pathologically oversensitive or whatever one would call such a condition will fall for this. Call it repression but it is a "normal and healthy" repression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

Look at # and sales of cars in the last 20 years, look at # of flight miles etc. and nobody will believe that such curves will suddenly turn around, they might get less steep but even if the become flat we are a very long way from a turnaround.

About +1,5°C to +2°C away I'd say. Which -unless you're already a bit old- will probably happen in our lifetimes.

I think you're underestimating how bad things are going to get. In fact, I'll daresay you're still not taking the warnings seriously.
Heck, you're not taking what is already happening seriously.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

I don't doubt that psychotherapists might become busy. But a lot of this is lipservice and affects only very few people, probably often overly sensitive or with pre-conditions.

I think we're already past the point where people who are anxious about the future are "overly sensitive." I'll even go as far as saying that the ones developing mental issues are the ones burying their heads in the sand and acting as though nothing can or should be done. Global warming is not  abstract or theoretical. In itself, anxiety isn't constructive of course, but there are already a great number of ordinary people moving way past lip service. The only question is how soon that number reaches a critical mass in our societies to translate into actual political and economic action.

And even on that front... Among Democrats the environment has recently shot to being #1 issue, rivaled only by healthcare. The politicians are riding the wave, perhaps, but some of them are no doubt sincere. The proposals made by some of the Democratic candidates may sound fanciful today, but they'll be common sense to a majority within just a few years. To borrow a leaf out of the other side's playbook: the Overton window has already been shifted.

In a nutshell, this is a movement whose growth is ineluctable. The debate is already everywhere, the issue on everybody's mind. The question isn't really whether something is going to be done about it, the question is whether it will be done soon enough.
If our generation acts, there's hope. If we leave it to our children we are truly despicable.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

And the same applies to people feeling guilt for what they think of as simply living their lives and doing their jobs.

I strongly disagree. To be sure I mostly blame corporations and politicians, but I'm already starting to think that people who think individuals can carry on as normal are dangerous lunatics.

Oh, and about slavery... I think you're missing the point. It's not really guilt over something like slavery that matters, it's about understanding the logic and structure of exploitation. Understanding what's been done is part of understanding what's being done. The past is a means, not an end.

 

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was a misunderstanding. I was not talking about climate curves. I am not sure about them but I don't at all want to dispute their plausibilty.

I was talking about curves representing the # of cars and flight miles etc. I wrote all this many pages ago. When did the bloody conferences in Rio and Kyoto take place? 1995? Look at the development since then. It went in the WRONG direction: More cars, more planeflights. About the only thing that has been flat or slightly decreasing since the 90s (actually stable/decreasing since the 80s in Germany) is meat consumption so many love to preach about. In virtually anything else (including exotic plant foods brought in by plane, like every vegan's favorite avocado) we became worse, often much worse in the last 30 years. While being environmentally conscious all the time with our loud mouths. And for people born in that time this is simply their accustomed lifestyle. They have trouble imagining it could be any different. They are not aware how much energy the servers use so they can live "minimalist" lifestyles without shelves of videotapes like their consumerist 1980s parents because they stream everything at anytime. And so on. Without the force of something like the French or Russian revolution nobody will make western Joe and Jane Sixpack change their lifestyles as radically as it would be necessary. Maybe we get such a revolution (it would have the additional "benefit" of killing a few million or so) but I seriously doubt that. If politicians take away people's lifestyle (and recall that in many countries under/middle class people have been struggling or just getting by for a decade or two), they will not be re-elected. Then you will have Bolsonaro types im power and no climate conscious policy at all.

If there will be catastrophic developments the people the respective region will simply have to suffer them. The world is not changing their lifestyle and it very probably is economically impossible anyway (again "impossible" short of a 1917 scale worldwide revolution). Because worldwide is the next important word. IF the west had done something in 1997 or so, it would have had a large impact because they were the main resource wasters. Now the impact of Western Europe and even the US is comparably small compared to India and China. Germany and France are almost irrelevant on that scale, Sweden most certainly is neglegible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jo498 said:

Without the force of something like the French or Russian revolution nobody will make western Joe and Jane Sixpack change their lifestyles as radically as it would be necessary. Maybe we get such a revolution (it would have the additional "benefit" of killing a few million or so) but I seriously doubt that

I don't. And even if I did, despair is way more useless than anxiety.

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I don't think we're talking about the same type or level of guilt here. This wouldn't be guilt over some very specific historical offenses committed by one's ancestors or nation. We'd be talking about:
- Guilt over destroying our planet's environment and making huge swathes of it uninhabitable because of individual and corporate greed (themselves stemming from the consumer society and non-traditional forms of capitalism).

This is indeed a different kind of guilt, but if we were going to feel it, I think we'd have felt it long before now. Ignoring the future completely and considering only today, humanity has already driven a large number of species to extinction, destroyed a wide variety of ecosystems (lakes, forests, swamps, etc.) in various parts of the world and has even managed to noticeably pollute the global ocean. I think when this is brought up to most people, they feel bad and perhaps angry that this has happened (and continues to happen), but I don't think people feel guilty (I certainly don't and I've probably spent more time reading about the damage than most of Earth's population).

13 hours ago, Rippounet said:

- Survivor's guilt and grief. Even in states that do not fail and societies that do not collapse, the death toll linked to global warming could still be horrendous. Just think of the heat waves in Australia in the next decades!
- Guilt over modern means of pillaging resources and waging warfare. While it was common to celebrate victory or domination over enemies or "others" when you had to confront and kill them face to face, war progressively became less glorified with the advent of modern technology. Machine guns in the American Civil War, artillery and gas in World War I, massive bombings and atomic weapons in World War II... Weapons of mass destruction remain highly controversial today, and the modern media can incite massive awareness and guilt over remote events... You'd need massive censorship for people not to feel guilty about living comfortably through the next century.

Survivor's guilt mainly happens when somebody very close to an individual dies. I don't think this is going to be the kind of cataclysm where such a thing is common; Australians can rely on air conditioning (which, as with many mitigation strategies, makes the original problem worse for everyone). As to guilt over modern means, I really don't see it except in certain cultures and even there it's often a minority opinion. For example, even after seven decades of propaganda, more than half of Americans think the use of atomic weapons in WWII was justified.

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Of course, you could say that's not a given and that people could simply see themselves as the "better" humans while looking down on the societies that didn't make it. But in that case, wouldn't that mean... the victory of fascism? Genuine question here. A humanity that would not be crushed by guilt over global warming could hardly be considered humane...

I think it would just be humanity behaving as it has throughout recorded history. There have always been disasters, both natural and man-made, and there have always been societies that survived and societies that did not. The only difference here is that the calamity will be both global and man-made -- we've never managed to do such a thing before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not desperate. I simply think that people are kidding themselves wrt measures that can realistically be taken to change the way of living.  And most political or public reactions all pretend that almost everything can just stay as it is, we will simply use electric cars or some far-fetched scifi things not having been developed yet. There are also plenty of fig leafs, e.g. banning plastic bags in Germany where we have had to pay for most of them since many years and where most of them are re-used and recycled or at least collected. Hardly any of these bags ends up in the landscape or ocean.  (Also canvas bags or similar ones have been distributed or sold to replace plastic since the 1980s!) These fig leafs make people feel good while they don't have to change serious things about their lifestyle.

What FFF etc. are demanding are often climate goals signed already in the mid-1990s by western countries but mainly ignored afterwards. Why should we expect that after 25 years of inaction (or often worse) this should suddenly change? I pointed out that theree are a bunch of bad lifestyle developments since then people will not easily give up (frequent flying, fast fashion, mail ordering about everything, takeaway with its flood of styrofoam cups, more electronic gadgets with shorter half lifes), far less go back to a mid-1960s level of quality of life or so. And almost all other conditions for such changes have become worse as well since the early 1990s. We have much stronger social tensions in Western countries because of precarization, economic differences, migration. The goverments have made themselves weaker and more dependent on big corporations, including privatization of infrastructure. Public infrastructure has (sometimes because of privatization, sometimes not) often deteriorated. And the economic pressures have risen because of China and other countries becoming serious competitors.

They are now some subgroups stressing that socio-economical change is a precondition for the fight against climate change but this is also double-edged because they (usually some kind of far left) will alienate most of the populace and be easy scapegoats for the right winger who claim that this all is just a pretense for a new commie rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is indeed a different kind of guilt, but if we were going to feel it, I think we'd have felt it long before now.

Are we not?
The difference is that until now, we've had guilt alone, without having to suffer the consequences of our actions. Once the consequences start hitting us, I think the guilt will be a bit more difficult to escape...

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

Survivor's guilt mainly happens when somebody very close to an individual dies. I don't think this is going to be the kind of cataclysm where such a thing is common

Depends where you live.

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

As to guilt over modern means, I really don't see it except in certain cultures and even there it's often a minority opinion. For example, even after seven decades of propaganda, more than half of Americans think the use of atomic weapons in WWII was justified.

And what do the Japanese think about it? :rolleyes:

I think we're talking about two slightly different things. You're focused on the individual, I'm looking at the collective.
Very few people had reasons to feel guilty about the holocaust. But humanity has felt the guilt of it in several identifiable ways. It had a significant impact on the way we think of ideologies, of politics, of racism, and of human nature...
It's a funny experience sometimes when you read some of these old novels and feel some of their optimism... Something we lost.

Americans may not feel guilty about Hiroshima specifically, but the mushroom cloud is syonymous with terror throughout the world. It is the ultimate symbol of annihilation, so much so that not a single nation has dared use such a weapon again in war since then. Just the word "Hiroshima" conjures a number of horrifying images in most people's minds. And the US still has a "no-first-use" doctrine in place I believe, 74 years later...

Killing the environment will leave humanity with something like that. Not that much of an individual guilt, but a form of soul-crushing collective guilt that will change the way we think of ourselves and organize our societies. Individuals won't feel guilty, but they will live in societies whose structures reflect the collective perception of humanity stemming from past events. And I reckon the events to come will transform the holocaust into a mere footnote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes 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.

Even if what she says is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greta is a symbol and she might eventually feel abused by what is happening with her now. But the problem is known since at least 30-40 years (some things since more than 50 years) and while some measures have been taken, the overall development since then was in a wrong direction. That's why I am extremely sceptical that it will be different this time.

I am sounding like a stuck record, but again, simply look at the aspects of western lifestyle that are taken for granted today and that hardly existed 35 years ago or became far worse from a climate change perspective in that time, like frequent flying, fast fashion, takeaway meals and drinks, 24/7 streaming (while feeling "minimalist" rather than consumerist because no shelves of videotapes), new gadgets every two years, fat SUVs, etc. And structurally it is also rather worse because rabid capitalism seems without alternative (this was different in the 70s and early 80s and the capitalism of that time had been tamed) and political cronyism seems more powerful than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

I am sounding like a stuck record, but again, simply look at the aspects of western lifestyle that are taken for granted today and that hardly existed 35 years ago or became far worse from a climate change perspective in that time, like frequent flying, fast fashion, takeaway meals and drinks, 24/7 streaming (while feeling "minimalist" rather than consumerist because no shelves of videotapes), new gadgets every two years, fat SUVs, etc. And structurally it is also rather worse because rabid capitalism seems without alternative (this was different in the 70s and early 80s and the capitalism of that time had been tamed) and political cronyism seems more powerful than ever.

There have been improvements in some areas too its worth pointing out. As well as mentioning that its now not just the West that is indulging in all these things, its the rest of the world (especially China and India)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Even if what she says is true?

Sensible climate action is required. Alarmist hysterics should be challenged.

We are likely not going to beat the 2 degree warming target - or is it 1.5 degrees now? This ship will take a couple of decades to turn. But we won’t die out as a result either. In fact, we will mitigate the consequences with new technology as best we can.

Not ideal, but that’s the realistic outcome. Short of a global tyrannical government of climate fanatics enforcing radical restrictions to our way of life.

20 years from now electric vehicles will have replaced internal combustion engines, solar and nuclear power stations supported by massive battery systems will have replaced dirty coal power, and our emissions will be under control. But that ain’t happening in the next 5-10 years.

Just accept it and get on with life. Mass hysteria won’t change it.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×