Jump to content

What shouldn't be done...about climate change


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

On 10/20/2019 at 8:56 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It isn’t and never was. It is to disrupt the economy to get government to act.

Except the only thing it will get govt to act on is arresting them. If you lose a lot of average Joe public support then the govt is ONLY motivated to get average Joe on their side so they can win the next election.

trying to brow beat people into action simply doesn't work, and it's more likely to be counter-productive.

The way to get govts to act is to get masses of people on your side so that govts actually realise there are votes to be lost (or won) by doing the right thing.

XR is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, and IMO that means they are more likely to slow down the pace of change rather than speed it up.

And it seems XR has realised this, at least with the tube protest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 


Yeah, exactly. A recession or what have you is bad news but the idea that something on a scale that would make climate change seem a minor thing is predictable and will happen in two years is ludicrous.

Except that it's reasonably predictable that worst case scenario climate change will cause such a collapse, just not in the next 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ummester said:

Prove it - scientifically - with facts and figures and not just fundamentalist humanist bullshit.

I guarantee, whatever you argue, I can find the math to back up how incorrect you are.

Why are you challenging people to prove something you are certain is wrong? Why not be generous with your knowledge and give us the maths so that we can all be educated?

I don't challenge flat Earthers to try to prove to me the Earth is flat when I know for a fact it's not. I offer them the facts that proves the earth is spherical-ish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro fission watermelons don't exist afaict.  But nuclear is probably the only currently feasible way to give 8 billion plus people a good standard of living w o carbon emissions.  Socialists need things to get worse first which forecludes that I suppose.

Saw today that China has more coal emissions than the rest of the globe combined.  Mayhaps greta should go there next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at temperature variance maps of the Arctic from the last few weeks with much of the region sitting at up to 32C above average temperatures for this time of year and its been super high for weeks. Not feeling optimistic at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Pro fission watermelons don't exist afaict.  But nuclear is probably the only currently feasible way to give 8 billion plus people a good standard of living w o carbon emissions.  Socialists need things to get worse first which forecludes that I suppose.

Saw today that China has more coal emissions than the rest of the globe combined.  Mayhaps greta should go there next?

China also has and is building more nuclear plants than anyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bunch of YouTube video creators got together and set up a donation site for planting trees. The actual trees will be planted by the Arbor Day Foundation in a variety of forests. Of course, not all of them will survive and their goal is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude from what it would take to make a noticeable impact, but it's still surprising how much money they've collected in less than half a day. Most Kickstarters and other crowdfunding campaigns which offer rewards don't start off this well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 5:05 AM, ummester said:

It is entirely true. Human's, by nature of their very existence, oppose the natural environment on this planet. Does not matter if you are a simple hunter gatherer of advanced Western consumer - you take from nature to survive.

This is literally the defining characteristics of all animals. Like, a hunter-gather isn't taking from nature anymore or less than a typical ape lol. 

On 10/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, ummester said:

Look, I don't mind the climate fundamentalists - 

So far you've made clear any person trying address to man-made climate falls In this category of ”climate-fundamentalists”.

Here's the Reality-the species is threatened by climate change. 

We should probably take hard steps to address it right now. 

Here is the Reality-the earth will not care if we die out as a result. It has existed for billions of years, and continue to exist billions of years after Homo-sapient-sapients die out. 

You continuously whining that people are trying to address the problem is not the mature approach. It's just a lazy, ego-centric attitude, and quite frankly gross approach. 

On 10/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, ummester said:

Here is the reality - Western nationalism is gathering to oppose corporate globalism at a time both the economy and planet is fucked.

Here's the reality - Nationalism is on the rise worldwide, and the amount of harm it’ll bring probably will be exacerbated greatly by virtue of tens of millions upon of people from Africa, parts of the middle east, Assia having to flee their homes to come to Europe and the US seeking sanctuary because living in their homes has become impossibl. Here's the reality-the hoard of people fleeing their homes will not be swayed by the totally sympathetic reasoning you’ve touted out which is their deaths may be a good thing for the planet and they should stick with the hand they've been dealt because live isn't fair. You could cry that they're being totes unreasonable, but they'll still fight like hell to migrate somewhere they think they have a chance of not dying and fight like hell to stay there.

On 10/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, ummester said:

Nationalism will lead to global war. Pick your poison. The future is about to get messy and those running around promoting the Paris Accord have no idea.

It's quite amusing to see you act like you’re the mature, realist, regarding this topic when you’re preaching the message of ”do nothing”  because of the  existence or really in this the potential existence of other problems. 

”I have to pay rent, so why worry about getting groceries?”

”I have hiv so why should I care about paying my rent?”

”I have cancer already so why should I try dealing with my Hiv?”

On 10/24/2019 at 4:55 AM, ummester said:

Prove it - scientifically - with facts and figures and not just fundamentalist humanist bullshit.

I guarantee, whatever you argue, I can find the math to back up how incorrect you are.

They are the one animal, among all others on this planet,that shapes its environment rather than existsin it.

This is simply wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species

I don't really care about what pseudo-philosophical argument  you think sounds insightful or deep, or whatever, you have  in your head for why you aren't wrong.  You're still Wrong here.

If our existence is the cause, then surely our depopulation will add to the solution?

This is fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.

Killing off the entirety of people of the US and Europe would do more to combat climate change than killing off the entirety of Africa. 

A grim, unsympathetic, statement, I know but no more horrid than your nonchalant proposal of depopulation-which effectively in this instance  means tens of millions, if not billions, to die out. 

And actually based in some degree of evidence. 

”Africa's fossil-fuel CO2 emissions are low in both absolute and per capita terms. Total emissions for Africa have increased twelve-fold since 1950 reaching 311 million metric tons of carbon in 2008, still less than the emissions for some single nations including Mainland China, the U.S., India, Russia, and Japan”

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/tre_afr.html

It is not a matter of just population. 16% of the entirety of humanity could die right this second-one of the groups of people who will likely suffer the most from climate change-and it wouldn't make a damn difference. 

So no, just loads of humanity dying off(or perhaps killed will not automatically add more to any solution. 

Certian societies need to change their structure, how their average citizen is allowed to live, must change, projects that will cost a lot of money will need to be funded. 

”whilst a lesser number of humans is better for it.”

No. It isn't. The earth doesn't care if one species that will be dead before the son blows up, dies out right this second. Climate-change is bad for humanity. That's it. There is no grand goal the earth is trying to reach being railroaded by humanity with climate-change.

You speak of humanity’s insignificance. Fine. Be consistent at least and understand humanity’s presence means nothing to earth. It was not a good or bad thing for the earth when 80% of life was wiped out by the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. 

 Responding to the bolded: I'm getting you don't actually know what humanism is given the entire Philosophy empathize's people relying on rationalism, and empiricism to go about their life in contrast  to relying on superstitious none-sense, or take the idea that that posits humans are special just because some divinity(which will/can never be proven) supposedly said so(the weakest and quite frankly idiotic argument for human exceptionalism given it's reliance wishful thinking). Honestly, the ”Humans are special because of some divine entity, and we should only look to our holy books(using a literalist approach) to try solve issues for our problems” is a type of thinking humanists have tried to push back against is a bigger contributor to the problem of climate-change. 

23 hours ago, maarsen said:

China also has and is building more nuclear plants than anyone else. 

That really doesn't matter. People who say ”What about China” in response to criticism to how their society/community/country is contributing to climate-change don't actually care what China does or doesn't do.  It's mere deflection-meant only to avoid any discussion of them having to do something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 9:26 AM, TrueMetis said:

Why are people under the impression that the Milankovitch cycles or solar cycles aren't the first thing climatologists looked at when trying to figure out what was causing warming? They are the ones that discovered the effects these things can have on the climate after all. The Milankovitch cycles operate on a minimum scale of 10's of thousand of years. They are not the cause of the warming of the last century.

Especially because for at least axial tilt, we're in about the middle of the cycle, and decreasing tilt. And a decreasing axial tilt causes cooling, not warming.

Also what unmester described is axial precession not axial tilt. Axial tilt is the angle between an objects rotational and orbital axes. Not the wobble. I don't know what effect the precession has on climate off hand, but it's on like a ~20000 year cycle. So it can't be having a large one.

Because it allows them(really deniers) an easy out. It's just nature-so its not ”our” Fault, and not something that could be changed anyway. It's complete hogwash, of course. But that doesn't matter. It feels good to them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rippounet - I'm teaching an intro course in sociology of all things this semester (don't ask why), and one of the books assigned is What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism (2011).  Trust me, not my choice..well, I suppose I had a choice, but I was way too lazy and unfamiliar with the material to significantly alter the inherited syllabus. 

Anyway, I just finished writing their second exam (yes I have very weird work hours, don't judge!), and the last chapter covered actually provides a list of things that could be done within the current economic system - whereas most of the book is an unbridled attack on capitalism and how it is fundamentally incompatible with solving climate change.  Made me think of this thread (or rather your OP in the original thread), so I thought I'd summarize that list, which "priotiz[es] those issues that are most important" (Chapter 6, 126-131):

  • A carbon tax in which the 100% of the dividends are returned to the public (equally)
  • Block new coal-fired plants and close down old ones
  • Block attempts to use tar sands and oil/gas shale production to replace diminishing crude supplies, since these are even more dangerous from a climate change standpoint
  • Make the US participate in international agreements reducing carbon emissions (again, the book was published in 2011)
  • Push for wealthy countries, especially the US, to back uniform world per capita emissions
  • End the extraction of natural resources that are prone to excessive environmental damage
  • Make more efficient use of energy, together with reducing energy use (authors' emphasis)
  • Provide for the world's energy via wind, water, and solar (WWS) without resorting to biofuels or nuclear 
  • Promote mass transit
  • Make the EPA enhance its efforts to ensure that environmental justice concerns are integral to its decision-making process
  • Encourage sustainable agricultural practices/eliminate (wherever possible) destructive industrial agricultural practices
  • Combat extreme rifts between urban and rural, wherein sprawl eradicates rural areas while at the same time placing more demands on it
  • Reverse the privatization of the world's freshwater and make freshwater a right of all people
  • Push for international agreements that limit fishing by factory-size ships, stop the catch of endangered species, and drastically reduce the catch of species in decline
  • Protect habitats of threatened and endangered species
  • Develop a better social safety net system
  • Create new jobs by implementing greener technologies and increasing reliance on small-scale farming
  • Achieve a more equitable distribution of resources via taxation, public works, affordable housing - whatever will do the job
  • Stop the "revolving door" between business/lobbyists, agencies, and Congress
  • Bring an end to the imposition of increased environmental risks on people due to race, class, gender, and nationality
  • "Massively" cut military spending, close down foreign military bases, and shift the spending to social and environmental needs

So, there ya go.  Piece of cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2019 at 5:51 PM, DMC said:

@Rippounet - I'm teaching an intro course in sociology of all things this semester (don't ask why), and one of the books assigned is What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism (2011).  Trust me, not my choice..well, I suppose I had a choice, but I was way too lazy and unfamiliar with the material to significantly alter the inherited syllabus. 

Anyway, I just finished writing their second exam (yes I have very weird work hours, don't judge!), and the last chapter covered actually provides a list of things that could be done within the current economic system - whereas most of the book is an unbridled attack on capitalism and how it is fundamentally incompatible with solving climate change.  Made me think of this thread (or rather your OP in the original thread), so I thought I'd summarize that list, which "priotiz[es] those issues that are most important" (Chapter 6, 126-131):

  • A carbon tax in which the 100% of the dividends are returned to the public (equally)
  • Block new coal-fired plants and close down old ones
  • Block attempts to use tar sands and oil/gas shale production to replace diminishing crude supplies, since these are even more dangerous from a climate change standpoint
  • Make the US participate in international agreements reducing carbon emissions (again, the book was published in 2011)
  • Push for wealthy countries, especially the US, to back uniform world per capita emissions
  • End the extraction of natural resources that are prone to excessive environmental damage
  • Make more efficient use of energy, together with reducing energy use (authors' emphasis)
  • Provide for the world's energy via wind, water, and solar (WWS) without resorting to biofuels or nuclear 
  • Promote mass transit
  • Make the EPA enhance its efforts to ensure that environmental justice concerns are integral to its decision-making process
  • Encourage sustainable agricultural practices/eliminate (wherever possible) destructive industrial agricultural practices
  • Combat extreme rifts between urban and rural, wherein sprawl eradicates rural areas while at the same time placing more demands on it
  • Reverse the privatization of the world's freshwater and make freshwater a right of all people
  • Push for international agreements that limit fishing by factory-size ships, stop the catch of endangered species, and drastically reduce the catch of species in decline
  • Protect habitats of threatened and endangered species
  • Develop a better social safety net system
  • Create new jobs by implementing greener technologies and increasing reliance on small-scale farming
  • Achieve a more equitable distribution of resources via taxation, public works, affordable housing - whatever will do the job
  • Stop the "revolving door" between business/lobbyists, agencies, and Congress
  • Bring an end to the imposition of increased environmental risks on people due to race, class, gender, and nationality
  • "Massively" cut military spending, close down foreign military bases, and shift the spending to social and environmental needs

So, there ya go.  Piece of cake.

So a left wing nutter’s wet dream, basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So a left wing nutter’s wet dream, basically.

It's actually striking how much Greta Thunberg's UN speech aligned with the most persuasive arguments of the book that's from.  I have a fundamental problem with the approach the authors take in their arguments, but substantively it's very hard to argue on the empirical facts presented.  Is it pure fantasy land to think that even a small percentage of that list could be realized under the current political climate plaguing western democracies and the US in particular?  Of course.  But that's only because there's far too many people who ensconce themselves in their own abject fantasy land like yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So a left wing nutter’s wet dream, basically.

Right it's a far more reasonable to expect to find the technology to terraform mars(again really strong possibility  that's simply impossible), and musher up the capital to send billions of people over to it all with the mindset climate-change is not an immediate and great threat before the worse effects of it kick in.

Government Regulation on the industries responsible for the problems? Investing in green energy? Protecting endangered species? Fucking insane ways to go about it.

I'm being sarcastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2019 at 4:51 AM, DMC said:
  • Provide for the world's energy via wind, water, and solar (WWS) without resorting to biofuels or nuclear 
  • Promote mass transit

Seems as though Geothermal should be included in this grouping as well.

On 10/27/2019 at 4:51 AM, DMC said:

Make more efficient use of energy, together with reducing energy use (authors' emphasis)

^^^^ Or possibly it's covered here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more efficient use of energy also includes things like more stringent building codes which have the second benefit being nicer buildings to occupy. Its another one of those cases where up front investment doesn't just reduce the environmental impact but gives us a better 'product' as well.

But its another thing thats basically impossible when people think building structures that will collapse on top of you is a fundamental part of freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...