What should be done... about climate change

[Rippounet]

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.

[Altherion]

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.

[Jo498]

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.

[Rippounet]

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?

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.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

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.

[Liffguard]

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?

[Jo498]

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.

[Heartofice]

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)

[Free Northman Reborn]

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.

[Rippounet]

58 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.

Edit : 'kay let's be adults and have you tell us what Greta is wrong about. 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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

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

[Liffguard]

26 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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

 

Alarmism is sensible, because the situation is alarming.

[karaddin]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

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

Given past posts on the subject of global demographics there are some posters in this thread that will likely view the mass deaths in parts of the world that aren't their own back yard as a feature of climate change rather than a bug. Shocking how they pretend that it's simply being impotent rather than a choice.

And I'm pretty sure Greta is going to feel far more abused by the way we are trashing the future of the biosphere and by the right wing adults with massive media platforms attacking a child than she is by the people that are supporting her in what she chooses to do.

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

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

Give me an electric SUV that matches the performance of my current SUV at the same price level and I will switch today. Same with solar panels on my roof - I’m all for it, as long as it doesn’t cost me more.

The same with everything else in my life - food, holidays, you name it. But don’t expect me to reduce my quality of life for your hysterics. Instead lets find technological solutions to maintaining that quality of life while also reducing the impact on the climate. That is what most people want. Those that care at least. 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.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Given past posts on the subject of global demographics there are some posters in this thread that will likely view the mass deaths in parts of the world that aren't their own back yard as a feature of climate change rather than a bug. Shocking how they pretend that it's simply being impotent rather than a choice.

And I'm pretty sure Greta is going to feel far more abused by the way we are trashing the future of the biosphere and by the right wing adults with massive media platforms attacking a child than she is by the people that are supporting her in what she chooses to do.

The vast majority of people don’t base their daily life choices on what’s happening to some people who live thousands of miles away. They never have, and  are unlikely to do so voluntarily in the near future.

[Liffguard]

33 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But we won’t die out as a result either. In fact, we will mitigate the consequences with new technology as best we can.

Who's "we?" Without substantive, transformative action, lots of people are going to die. Primarily people from the global south. Are they not "we?"

[karaddin]

Just now, Liffguard said:

Who's "we?" Without substantive, transformative action, lots of people are going to die. Primarily people from the global south. Are they not "we?"

See the above few posts - the very best you could say is that he's apathetic and unwilling to spend a single dollar to save them and that's more charitable than I am.

And he claims his world view is the true fucking Christianity. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Give me an electric SUV that matches the performance of my current SUV at the same price level and I will switch today. Same with solar panels on my roof - I’m all for it, as long as it doesn’t cost me more.

The same with everything else in my life - food, holidays, you name it. But don’t expect me to reduce my quality of life for your hysterics. Instead lets find technological solutions to maintaining that quality of life while also reducing the impact on the climate. That is what most people want. Those that care at least. 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.

Ok, point is if everybody shares your attitude nothing's ever going to change.  And as others have asked, please identify what exactly Thunberg has said or done that qualifies as hysterics.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

don’t expect me to reduce my quality of life.

Fixed it.

Some people would rather see the world burn than give up their suv. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Liffguard said:

Who's "we?" Without substantive, transformative action, lots of people are going to die. Primarily people from the global south. Are they not "we?"

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.