Jump to content
Killjoybear

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

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Raja said:

'Quite a dysfunctional lot over there and so darn many of them'

What an ignorant, unsympathetic & class less thing to say. I don't know how old you are, but your words seem rather juvenile.

Edit: Then again, this forum( and life) has taught me that even people who've been around forever can state things that exhibit a complete lack of self-awareness & self-reflection.

I'm sympathetic, but I just don't see how things can change there. There are too many people, too many class and ethnic divisions, local government that is either corrupt or doesn't know how to manage these issues. And again, so many people and so much poverty. The climate crisis is largely the fault of the industrialized north, but it's the developing world that will be hit with the most misery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I'm sympathetic, but I just don't see how things can change there. There are too many people, too many class and ethnic divisions, local government that is either corrupt or doesn't know how to manage these issues. And again, so many people and so much poverty. The climate crisis is largely the fault of the industrialized north, but it's the developing world that will be hit with the most misery.  

Err - whatever, dude. I don't think anyone needs your sympathy. It's astounding to me that you can say this stuff and think it's an okay thing to say but you do you - calling people dysfunctional? so darn many of them? Do fuck off with your xenophobic & racist horseshit.

But forgive me for not engaging with you. If you think things haven't been changing over the last 20 years, it's because you're thoroughly ill-informed and haven't cracked open a book or actually have an understanding of the 'developing world'.

Again, it shows a lack of self reflection and any hint of critical thinking.

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'undeveloping' country of India -- they've more attempts at moon landings in the last few years than the US has. I may not like the direction politically its leader are currently taking -- that, like here in the US, is the greatest obstacle with India dealing with climate catastrophe -- but 'undeveloped?'  When Silicon Valley bemoans its dearth of India employees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and genuinely productive take on 'the Wall.' 

 

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/build-the-energy-wall?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1568274759&fbclid=IwAR3iYH-6EXw1cQfrbR073-eETInak3xTyEgezXTrJqk2jevJWHe0OgSFBj4

 

A consortium of 28 engineers and scientists has proposed that – instead of building a simple barrier along the approximately 2,000-mile border – the U.S. and Mexico could work together to build an industrial park along the divide that would include desalination facilities, solar energy panels, wind turbines and natural gas pipelines. The plan would not only provide the region with border security – considering it'd be a continuous train of heavily guarded industrial facilities – but also energy, water and jobs.

In a white paper, the team called it a "future energy, water, industry and education park" that "will create massive opportunities for employment and prosperity."

"Just like the transcontinental railroad transformed the United States in the 19th century, or the Interstate system transformed the 20th century, this would be a national infrastructure project for the 21st century," Luciano Castillo, Purdue University's Kenninger Professor of Renewable Energy and Power Systems and lead of the consortium, told Phys.org. "It would do for the Southwest what the Tennessee Valley Authority has done for the Southeast over the last several decades."

 

 

Edited by ThinkerX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This 'undeveloping' country of India -- they've more attempts at moon landings in the last few years than the US has. I may not like the direction politically its leader are currently taking -- that, like here in the US, is the greatest obstacle with India dealing with climate catastrophe -- but 'undeveloped?'  When Silicon Valley bemoans its dearth of India employees?

I referred to the "developing world". I never used the term "undeveloping" or "undeveloped". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said this in the US politics thread, pressure your governments to get dirt on Republicans and share that with Democrats. Trump says it's okay, after all. We can get this done if we neuter the one major political party opposing any action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 5:20 PM, Pecan said:

I referred to the "developing world". I never used the term "undeveloping" or "undeveloped". 

Most people would think that a country that can do moon shots, more than once, is developed, right?

However your spin develops, it was and is not, shall we say, accurate, right?

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zorral said:

Most people would think that a country that can do moon shots, more than once, is developed, right?

However your spin develops, it was and is not, shall we say, accurate, right?

India is commonly referred to as a developing country by organizations like UNESCO. I'm not sure why you're so agitated about this particular terminology. It's common usage to refer to India and many other countries as "developing" because in comparison to the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, etc., they are at a lower stage of development as measured by various metrics. I'm not an expert on this. I'm just using common and widespread terminology. You are, of course, free to disagree and have your own opinion about what stage of development India or any other country is in. Feel free to look into the standards of measurement that are used, the various indexes that these organizations employ to make these determinations. Knock yourself out. But that doesn't make my use of the terminology incorrect as, again, it is within the bounds of common usage to refer to India as a developing country. 

It is true though that India has made a lot of progress, lifting millions out of extreme poverty, creating a diverse and multifaceted economy, and yes, the moon shots. But the water crisis is real, and because there are 1.3 billion Indians, it really should be looked at as a global issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there some discussion about how we need religion-like adherence to sustainability to succeed? I had to think about that recently when reading articles about people from the far-left warning against meddling with the "Extincrion Rebellion" group because of its esotheric choice of words that make them more and more like a religious sect (the same articles notably pointed out that the suggestion from the far-right was to just murder those doing sit-ins, which I found pretty telling). Unfortunately I couldn't find any English article phrasing similar criticisms, but here is one Spiegel article from last week depicting that very same group: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-climate-activists-from-extinction-rebellion-a-1289993.html

So yeah, here we are. Shortly before the UN climate conference the German lawmakers haphazardly prepared a package of measures that have been widely criticized as essentially doing nothing at all. It contained a negligible CO² tax, some subventions for electric cars and a tax break for commuters that had to be done anyway and is more profitable for car owners than anyone else. Yesterday the government then announced to further water down this climate package by essentially removing clear emission goals and many of the oversight and control mechanisms supposed to give the government power to track the emission goals and interfer when state level actors didn't do enough. So basically getting rid of the entire point of the paper, which in turn caused a lot of media outrage, frustration of climate activists and renewed protests that are announced to last the whole week.

I'm extremely frustrated myself, but I guess it is kinda fitting that I planned on joining the FfF protests this Friday for a change. Though I will have to go more or less icognito because it still feels strange to join them as a teacher, but then again it isn't student strikes we need, we need to include everyone.

Share this post


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

Wasn't there some discussion about how we need religion-like adherence to sustainability to succeed?

Yes, @Kalbear was the one who really exposed this view.

10 hours ago, Toth said:

Wasn't there some discussion about how we need religion-like adherence to sustainability to succeed? I had to think about that recently when reading articles about people from the far-left warning against meddling with the "Extincrion Rebellion" group because of its esotheric choice of words that make them more and more like a religious sect (the same articles notably pointed out that the suggestion from the far-right was to just murder those doing sit-ins, which I found pretty telling).

Hardly surprising. Climate change will soon join immigration as the n° 1 topic in politics with radicals on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was originally going to post this in the Nobel prizes topic, but I think it might fit better here.

I'm not sure how I feel about Greta Thunberg being nominated for the peace prize, and in general I'm not sure how I feel about the huge amount of media attention she's attracting, both to herself and the overall cause of climate change action.

To be clear, I have nothing against Thunberg herself. I hugely respect and admire her for the work she has done. Here's my concern. The opponents of climate change action actively want there to be a single person that they can promote as being representative of climate change action as a whole. They want this so that when that person inevitably fucks up (as all real humans eventually will) - or even just does or says something less than ideal - they can use it as a propaganda weapon against the entire cause. So, whilst fully recognising her contribution, I'm slightly wary of making her the recipient of too many public plaudits. She deserves acknowledgement and respect, but we musn't make her into an avatar of the climate change movement. That's what the movement's opponents want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that in addition to your concern, focusing all this attention and acclaim is a way of still ignoring what she's asking for. She doesn't want fame or awards, she wants the countries of the world to change their behaviour. Instead she'll just get held up and then people will act like that recognition was doing something and not do anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Liffguard said:

They want this so that when that person inevitably fucks up (as all real humans eventually will) - or even just does or says something less than ideal - they can use it as a propaganda weapon against the entire cause.

Let's be honest here, detractors already got their "Gotcha!" moment when they criticized her Atlantic crossing. It didn't seem to be too effective.

So... I just came back from a FfF rally, sneaking along more or less icognito (and still ending up on regional TV for a split second) and noted that Thunberg wasn't mentioned once. The speakers focused more on the less than half-assed 'climate package' the German government put out... and much to my chagrin focused overly on the consumer side of changing things instead of pointing out all the political institutions who could act but lack the political will to do so. I also found myself rolling my eyes at most of the rallying cries. This was my first rally ever in my life, so... are they always so dumb? I get that you need something that rolls off easily from the tongue, but most I have heard were awfully specific while also awfully unfitting to whatever was said before. There was also a distinct lack of actual policy in the speeches (aside the consumer side changes that were in the very same speeches pointed out as not being enough anyway).

Am I too critical here? Is it bad that the whole time I was there there were ideas screaming around in my head of what actually should and could be done against climate change and wanted these things to replace the more or less empty slogans around me? Damn... I went there to feel some sense of hope and instead it felt like they were running up against a wall. It's also not helping that I didn't see a single politician anywhere. At the tiny local Fridays for Future rally where I live I usually see a booth of the Green party erected, obviously trying to make use of the occasion for their own image, but in the center of Berlin it was just the kids against a building, with no one there to listen. Sure, there was the press, but only of a regional television channel, but it felt as cold and dreadful as the weather was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning just for a moment to the claim that India is a developing or undeveloped country -- recall that most of the carbon toxic emissions is caused, They Say, by the developed nations.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/global-emissions-india-4th-highest-emitter-of-co2-study/article25677626.ece#

Quote

 

India is the fourth highest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, accounting for 7 per cent of global emissions in 2017, a study said on Wednesday.

The top four emitters in 2017, which covered 58 per cent of global emissions, were China (27 per cent), the US (15 per cent), the European Union (10 per cent) and India (7 per cent), according to the projection by the Global Carbon Project. The rest of the world contributed 41 per cent last year, it said.

India’s emissions look set to continue their strong growth by an average of 6.3 per cent in 2018, with growth across all fuels — coal (7.1 per cent), oil (2.9 per cent) and gas (6.0 per cent), the study said. The top 10 emitters were China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia and South Korea.

 

Seems pretty developed all right ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Returning just for a moment to the claim that India is a developing or undeveloped country -- recall that most of the carbon toxic emissions is caused, They Say, by the developed nations.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/global-emissions-india-4th-highest-emitter-of-co2-study/article25677626.ece#

Seems pretty developed all right ....

No one used the word undeveloped before you. 

This is quite frankly a bizarre argument.If you want to argue India is a developed country actually use the standards people/organizations use to measure a country’s development. 

Having a big carbon footprint is not one of those measures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China at 27% and USA 15% , EU 10%, India 7% of carbon toxic emissions by Zorral's source.

Interesting for me as wasnt sure how the measurements stacked up before, beyond already knowing the U.S. and China were doing poorly, China even worse than I knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess turning vaccuum cleaners into electric vehicles shouldn't be done, since Dyson has packed in his attempt to become an EV maker.

Seems some people are thinking this might be a sign of an EV bubble about to burst. I hope what they mean by that is that the EV start up bubble is bursting, and not that EVs in general is a bubble that's about to burst and the world is suddenly going to turn away from them. It could happen of course. Seems like for the most part uptake of EVs is still pretty slow even in countries with subsidies / rebates. I think there are inertial barriers that all need to be addressed before EVs can become mainstream, like public charging infrastructure, esp in remote / rural areas, price of EVs (without subsidies or rebates), range anxiety, charging time, towing / load capacity. Without addressing these issues EVs may just remain niche and not really be part of the solution to climate change. Though if they are not part of the solution to climate change is a solution possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess turning vaccuum cleaners into electric vehicles shouldn't be done, since Dyson has packed in his attempt to become an EV maker.

Seems some people are thinking this might be a sign of an EV bubble about to burst. I hope what they mean by that is that the EV start up bubble is bursting, and not that EVs in general is a bubble that's about to burst and the world is suddenly going to turn away from them. It could happen of course. Seems like for the most part uptake of EVs is still pretty slow even in countries with subsidies / rebates. I think there are inertial barriers that all need to be addressed before EVs can become mainstream, like public charging infrastructure, esp in remote / rural areas, price of EVs (without subsidies or rebates), range anxiety, charging time, towing / load capacity. Without addressing these issues EVs may just remain niche and not really be part of the solution to climate change. Though if they are not part of the solution to climate change is a solution possible?

Realism via historical comparison:

Stationary steam engines date back to the 18th century. First locomotive dates from 1804 or thereabouts.  Railways remained a curiosity, the province of dreamers and isolated test lines, for most of the next thirty years before starting to become truly widespread - over the vehement objections of barge companies.  Development.  Accommodation.

 

Tinkerers began experimenting with gasoline powered vehicles in the 19th century.  Again, they remained a curiosity and rich mans toy for multiple decades until Ford and other automakers started building automobiles in earnest - but even then, horse drawn buggies remained a common sight even in civilized realms for the first third of the 20th century.  And the railway magnates strongly objected to the new technology until the middle of the 20th century.

 

Similar examples apply to radio, computers, and other electrical devices.

 

Currently, electric vehicles are in the early manufacturing phase, and are not well thought of by the makers of internal combustion autos.  It will take a couple decades before they become dominant.  

 

Right now, electric 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Realism via historical comparison:

Stationary steam engines date back to the 18th century. First locomotive dates from 1804 or thereabouts.  Railways remained a curiosity, the province of dreamers and isolated test lines, for most of the next thirty years before starting to become truly widespread - over the vehement objections of barge companies.  Development.  Accommodation.

 

Tinkerers began experimenting with gasoline powered vehicles in the 19th century.  Again, they remained a curiosity and rich mans toy for multiple decades until Ford and other automakers started building automobiles in earnest - but even then, horse drawn buggies remained a common sight even in civilized realms for the first third of the 20th century.  And the railway magnates strongly objected to the new technology until the middle of the 20th century.

 

Similar examples apply to radio, computers, and other electrical devices.

 

Currently, electric vehicles are in the early manufacturing phase, and are not well thought of by the makers of internal combustion autos.  It will take a couple decades before they become dominant.  

 

Right now, electric 

Unfinished thought?

The problem is, none of those past slow burn innovations were associated with an existential crisis. In the absence of climate change who cares if EVs take 50 or 100 years to become the dominant means of personal motorised transport? I'm not in any rush to go electric except for the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. So it's not a question of EVs following the same trajectory as the usual technology evolutionary cycle. It's more a question of whether, for the sake of the planet and human civilisation, there is a need to break that cycle and force a shorter timeframe, and if so how that should be done?

In short: can we afford to wait those few decades for EVs to become dominant?

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...