|
Trabisnikof posted:Its funny how many people who claim to support climate action are also smugly posting that it is impossible to ever adapt/mitigate. Like weight loss, adapting to and mitigating climate change is going to require a lot of pain and sacrifice on the part of humanity, and things could get worse before they get better. Doesn't mean it can't happen. Just means that it sucks, and we already knew that.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
I think it is possible to harmonize a system that requires YoY growth every year, forever, and a planet that has finite resources and is facing extremely dire (for humans, pedant) consequences due to that system. Wait, no I don't, because that doesn't make any sense. Trabisnikof apparently believes the Glorious Socialist Revolution is less likely than making capitalism not care about short-term growth, which seems extremely naive. Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think it is possible to harmonize a system that requires YoY growth every year, forever, and a planet that has finite resources and is facing extremely dire (for humans, pedant) consequences due to that system. I forgot harmony was required to mitigate climate change, but that's like half of AR5 now that I think about it. Also once again, we have these things call "governments" that can make actions have short term costs that can change the way capitalist actors engage in the world. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I forgot harmony was required to mitigate climate change, but that's like half of AR5 now that I think about it. Feel free to look up the definition of "harmonize". It works perfectly well, since it's exactly what you're trying to propose - a solution that mitigates climate change while simultaneously not affecting capitalism. These "government" things, I haven't heard of. If they're so good at solving these problems, why is the situation getting worse? Was it this so-called "government" of America that grants massive tax subsidies to shale oil producers, or opens up large parts of the Atlantic to new oil development?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its funny how many people who claim to support climate action are also smugly posting that it is impossible to ever adapt/mitigate. As it stands? Yeah, it's kind of insurmountable. It doesn't change the nature of the thing though. Mitigating climate change isn't about changing your lightbulbs or recycling more. It's not a personal lifestyle choice to "go green". The problem is bigger than that, and those that would see the problem swept under the rug in the name of higher profits are holding all the cards. Trabisnikof posted:A lot of people claimed 350 ppm was that tipping point. Also, that wikipedia article doesn't really prove that there is a tipping point we're approaching. Well, you can link right out of that wikipedia article to this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1 Which I think illustrates the problem fairly well. However, the 350/400ppm "tipping point"... I wouldn't really consider it to be the best metric for triggering these feedback loops, as despite 2014 being the hottest year on record globally, a good chunk of the US was quite a bit cooler than average temp. Local temperature is what will, for instance, melt the Siberian peat bogs. So while higher CO2 levels swing us to higher average temps globally, you specifically need temps high enough in Siberia to melt the peat bogs. Unfortunately, Siberia has been warming quite quickly. From the article: quote:Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws. Once something like this really gets going, it's isn't going to stop, and will in fact accelerate. Siberian peat bogs are believed to hold enough methane to increase warming by 10 to 25 percent, so while it'll take decades to thaw, it is still a considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions over that period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Any sort of plan to combat climate change needs to include steps to mitigate and adapt, since we're already locked in to significant warming. Adaptation and mitigation are utterly insufficient alone. If we don't actually stop emitting carbon, the problem will continue to grow worse and worse, until it's doing so much damage that adaptation and mitigation are impossible. I've posted in the past how, in detail, I see a mass movement forming, implementing reforms, and eventually implementing economic change. I'd be interested to hear details from the people who believe strongly in capitalism how reforms can address all the environmental problems capitalism causes. This goes beyond just climate change; resource depletion (everything from fish to oil to lithium), trash, and other pollution are also looming problems. Most reformers point to a carbon tax, but given how corporations already dodge pretty much all of their tax burden, and that merely taxing carbon wouldn't create the carbon-free infrastructure we need in society, there are more hurdles than that single policy point to address.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Wouldn't carbon capture powered by nuclear reactors be a possible solution? I mean, it seems to me that the problem is our current power supply is largely based on CO2-emitting fossil fuels. Apologies if this was addressed recently - I couldn't find anything on the last few pages regarding it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
YarPirate posted:Wouldn't carbon capture powered by nuclear reactors be a possible solution? I mean, it seems to me that the problem is our current power supply is largely based on CO2-emitting fossil fuels. Nuclear power is awesome, has popular support (despite no significant advocates in the media), and obviously could play a huge role in stopping climate change. But how do you get a bunch of nuclear power plants built? How do you combat the money from oil companies, or all the other extremely wealthy and powerful corporations who have a huge stake in the current carbon economy? How do you get politicians to reform regulations, or prevent them from stopping or delaying nuclear power? Where does the money for these mega-projects come from? And those are not just questions for the United States. What about nuclear power for countries like Iran, which has been trying to build nuclear plants for decades and been thwarted by the US and the international community? What about nuclear power for poor countries around the world, or unstable countries? People are going to worry about the potential of nuclear bombs and radiation. The details in any sort of solution are important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Nuclear power is awesome, has popular support (despite no significant advocates in the media), and obviously could play a huge role in stopping climate change. But how do you get a bunch of nuclear power plants built? How do you combat the money from oil companies, or all the other extremely wealthy and powerful corporations who have a huge stake in the current carbon economy? How do you get politicians to reform regulations, or prevent them from stopping or delaying nuclear power? Where does the money for these mega-projects come from? And those are not just questions for the United States. What about nuclear power for countries like Iran, which has been trying to build nuclear plants for decades and been thwarted by the US and the international community? What about nuclear power for poor countries around the world, or unstable countries? People are going to worry about the potential of nuclear bombs and radiation. How to get a bunch built: Subsidize it, like anything else. Corn was subsidized and now it's in everything. Solar and wind were subsidized and now that's springing up everywhere (at least, in my state.) Combat money from oil companies who have a huge stake in the current carbon economy: Get them on board, don't fight them - they're already involved in international business, which would likely make it a bit easier to push for change overseas. They would have to be incentivized in some way to not only let this happen, but take part in it and realize that a healthy planet = a healthy economy = a healthy mega corporation in the future. I don't know the exact solution to this... I wish I did. Politicians will get on board with anything that makes their financiers more money, won't they? It feels to me like the main problem blocking progress is that people aren't taking this seriously because they think they'll be dead before they see any effects, and their kids are really smart so they'll figure something out by the time the oceans can't support life anymore. Beyond that, even people who realize it's an emergency aren't inspired to act since "no one else is doing anything." <- I'm not really sure what this phenomenon is called, or if I'm explaining it properly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
YarPirate posted:How to get a bunch built: Subsidize it, like anything else. Corn was subsidized and now it's in everything. Solar and wind were subsidized and now that's springing up everywhere (at least, in my state.) YarPirate posted:Combat money from oil companies who have a huge stake in the current carbon economy: Get them on board, don't fight them - they're already involved in international business, which would likely make it a bit easier to push for change overseas. They would have to be incentivized in some way to not only let this happen, but take part in it and realize that a healthy planet = a healthy economy = a healthy mega corporation in the future. I don't know the exact solution to this... I wish I did. YarPirate posted:Politicians will get on board with anything that makes their financiers more money, won't they? YarPirate posted:It feels to me like the main problem blocking progress is that people aren't taking this seriously because they think they'll be dead before they see any effects, and their kids are really smart so they'll figure something out by the time the oceans can't support life anymore. Beyond that, even people who realize it's an emergency aren't inspired to act since "no one else is doing anything." <- I'm not really sure what this phenomenon is called, or if I'm explaining it properly. Public opinion is actually that climate change is real (61%) and a serious problem (48%). This is despite a massive corporate effort to discredit climate change and dramatize irrelevant threats. The problem, then, is not popular support of the issue. If the problem is inaction and apathy, how do you get people into action? That has to be part of any solution you propose. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Before we think about getting people "active", we'd better think about whether that would make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Where does the political will for this come from? Why would US politicians suddenly support this? This also only begins to address US policy. Who subsidizes nuclear power in poor countries? What do you do about countries like Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria? You'd have to sell the urgency of the situation to the voters. There would have to be a smear campaign against every politician who has not signed up to promote action in a positive direction, I guess? Poorer countries would either need handouts (unlikely) or to wait around until the technology is widespread enough that they could afford it themselves. Aren't poorer countries emitting less CO2 per person than US/China, though? It would seem logical to work on the biggest offenders first, and the up-and-coming offenders next, at least from my perspective. quote:The top 5 oil companies make about $100 billion per year under the current dynamic. The most profitable company in the world is Exxon. They are the primary source of funds behind denier sites, lobby endlessly to keep the current system, and have clearly demonstrated a desire for short term profits, not long term planning. If you don't have a solution for this problem, you don't have a solution, period. I really wish I had a solution here, but I don't. If they can look at the evidence and say "yeah, it's okay that we're handing a turd platter to our children" then I can find little hope for our species. quote:Public opinion is actually that climate change is real (61%) and a serious problem (48%). This is despite a massive corporate effort to discredit climate change and dramatize irrelevant threats. The problem, then, is not popular support of the issue. If the problem is inaction and apathy, how do you get people into action? That has to be part of any solution you propose. I think you summed up what I was trying to get at very well. Apathy is the worst, at every level. I am not immune to its effects as I say "gently caress it" and light another cigarette.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Keeping your responses in mind, let's return to your original question: "Wouldn't carbon capture powered by nuclear reactors be a possible solution?" I would say the answer, then, is "no." Any solution proposed needs to be able to overcome the obstacles inherent to this problem. Nuclear power and carbon capture are both useful tools, but not a solution by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
A purely political/electoral solution is completely inadequate; only a revolutionary social transformation has any chance of mitigating the human side of the impending climate disasters of the next few hundred years. A mere carbon tax can't mitigate the unfairness of past industrialization/development and necessary future restrictions, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
How many of you read the IPCC 2014 reports? To my untrained eye, some of the popular opinions in this thread seem to conflict with the published consensus. Regarding the inevitable apocalypse/human extinction:  This is the IPCC conclusion of the societal effects for the most likely global warming scenarios. To me, it reads as a problem mainly for the poor/ subsistence farmers and a serious inconvenience for 1st world countries. Bad, but not human extinction bad in any sense. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:A purely political/electoral solution is completely inadequate; only a revolutionary social transformation has any chance of mitigating the human side of the impending climate disasters of the next few hundred years. A mere carbon tax can't mitigate the unfairness of past industrialization/development and necessary future restrictions, etc. quote:To me, if we cannot topple Capitalism and make changes for the good of all, yes, we're hosed.  quote:I'd be interested to hear details from the people who believe strongly in capitalism how reforms can address all the environmental problems capitalism causes Capitalism, continued short and long term economic growth and effective climate change intervention are perfectly capable to co-exist.  As you can see in the table, even with the most draconian climate changes intervention achieving 450 ppm in 2100 the annual growth rate of consumption would be reduced by only 0.06%. The projected annual baseline growth rate for the upcoming century is 1.6 - 3% per year. I have a feeling that capitalism can survive an annual growth rate of 1.54 - 2.94% just fine. The trick is to get these measures implemented as soon as possible. Demanding the overthrow of the capitalist system is unnecessary, in disagreement with scientific consensus on the best course of action and in my opinion hurting the cause as it muddies the water by trying to change a scientific issue into an ideological issue. Sources: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Before we think about getting people "active", we'd better think about whether that would make a difference. Well if we stormed the offices of the oil companies and executed their board members it might scare other companies into cooperation...worth a try anyway. Nothing 1 person can do though, they'd just be labeled as a lone loony.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:These above opinions are in complete disagreement with the scientific consensus. I think the trouble here is the difference between theory and practice. The IPCC say it is theoretically possible to adopt legislation that will encourage sufficient mitigating action on the part of polluters, within the current framework. What some posters are saying is that in practice that legislation is unlikely to be enacted without a truly significant change in political, economic and social power dynamics. - Also, to whoever was talking about 350ppm, while some may have suggested that figure as a tipping point (though not that I've heard), its widespread usage is because it is the number James Hansen gave for an approximate concentration above which we would have an even chance of a 2 degree rise (which is the typical level given by governments as being unacceptable) in the long term. That we're well above that doesn't invalidate the prediction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
The New Black posted:I think the trouble here is the difference between theory and practice. The IPCC says its both theoretically possible and easy, the rest of the report points out how minor adjustments can have major impacts. Anyone can disagree with the IPCC of course, but doing so without support of a comparable scientific authority does reek of the same anti-science denial we so gleefully attribute to global warming "sceptics". I'm clearly no expert on this issue, but can any of the many anti-capitalists itt provide some sort of scientific consensus backing up the claim that capitalism must fall for climate change to be mitigated?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
British Columbia has arguably the most successful implementation of a carbon tax in the world and I don't really consider them a Marxist enclave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:The IPCC says its both theoretically possible and easy, the rest of the report points out how minor adjustments can have major impacts. Economics isn't a science. So no, you're not going to get any scientific consensus around backing up the claim that capitalism must fall. But the fact that people can appeal to scientific consensus and then dismiss heterodox economists is precisely why economics pretends to be a science. quote:Demanding the overthrow of the capitalist system is unnecessary, in disagreement with scientific consensus on the best course of action and in my opinion hurting the cause as it muddies the water by trying to change a scientific issue into an ideological issue. Interesting that you accuse people who disagree with that section of turning a 'scientific' issue into an ideological issue. It is already an ideological issue, and the use of terms like 'strong private property rights' and giving the private sector a primary role should indicate to you what ideological stance is being taken. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:The IPCC says its both theoretically possible and easy, the rest of the report points out how minor adjustments can have major impacts. It's not a scientific question at that point. The science is pretty settled on climate change; it's up to the politicians to enact policies that would help mitigate the effects of it. But the political capital isn't there, and the money is all on the other side (the pro-carbon side). If you really think that people will democratically elect leaders that will make us change our way of life within the current framework, I've got the past 240 years of American history to counter that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:
You misunderstand me, I am entirely and enormously uninterested in your personal interpretation of American history and how that reflects on the response of future voters regarding climate change. I'm sure it is well thought out and clever, as it is a subject you clearly know far more about then I do. Nevertheless, you will have to agree with me that this opinion of yours is for me comparable in inherent worth to that of my great grand aunt. Is there any field-expert or consensus panel echoing your opinion / the acute need to overthrow capitalism? I really am prepared to shift my opinion, but in cases like climate change where I have no scientific credentials I do rely mostly on the opinions of experts to base my own opinion on. Duck Rodgers posted:Economics isn't a science. So no, you're not going to get any scientific consensus around backing up the claim that capitalism must fall. But the fact that people can appeal to scientific consensus and then dismiss heterodox economists is precisely why economics pretends to be a science. I disagree that economic sciences is not a science, but that is entirely irrelevant to this thread. The people that made these papers are most definitely serious scientists. I'll introduce you to the chair of the IPCC for this particular panel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer quote:Edenhofer completed his Diploma in Economics with honors at the Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich. He joined the Jesuit Order from 1987-1994 and earned a bachelor degree in Philosophy with summa cum laude at the Munich School of Philosophy . During this time he also founded an enterprise in the public health sector and lead a humanitarian aid organization in Croatia and Bosnia from 1991-1993. After leaving the Order, Edenhofer worked as a research assistant from 1994-2000 and completed his PhD in Economics with summa cum laude at the Technical University of Darmstadt in 1999. Duck Rodgers posted:Interesting that you accuse people who disagree with that section of turning a 'scientific' issue into an ideological issue. It is already an ideological issue, and the use of terms like 'strong private property rights' and giving the private sector a primary role should indicate to you what ideological stance is being taken. I am unsure of what you are saying here, are you implying that the IPCC reports are ideological pieces written by staunch capitalists? IAMNOTADOCTOR fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:I disagree that economic sciences is not a science, but this is entirely irrelevant to this thread. The people that made these papers are most definitely serious scientists. I'll introduce you to the chair of the IPCC for this particular panel: quote:I am unsure of what you are saying here, are you implying that the IPCC reports are ideological pieces written by staunch capitalists? There's nothing wrong with being ideological. Whether the authors of that section firmly believe that capitalism is the best way to overcome climate change, or they believe that appealing to capitalist ideas such as private sector leadership is the pragmatic approach makes no difference. Their views on how to combat climate change are shaped by ideology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
For places that implement carbon taxes, what's preventing a Tony Abbott from coming along and winning on a platform of repealing them? apologies if I've already asked this question
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:It's great that the people on this panel have university degrees. That doesn't change that any study of society is normative and based on a number of assumptions about how both individuals and groups operate, including economics. The idea that climate change can be overcome within capitalism is a political consensus, not a scientific consensus. I think I understand you better now, thank-you for the clarification. But again, I feel that I have to disagree with you. The entire field of climate study that uses projections of future societal development to calculate the expected temperature rise is normative by your definition, correct? So following your logic, the most likely >2 degrees temperature rise by 2100 is not a scientific but a political consensus because it is based on the study of society? If that is a correct characterisation of your argument, then I don't think those are workable definitions of scientific vs political consensus, at least not for me. As I read it, the IPCC panel, consisting of a collection of the worlds brightest climate/economic scientist, used the available published data to build models to come to multiple conclusions. One of them being that with proper incentives private companies can play a very important role in mitigating climate change. To me, that is a scientific consensus comparable to those found in public health; One of the most effective means of reducing the prevalence of tobacco use is by increasing federal and state excise tax rates. A 10% increase in the price of cigarettes can lead to a 4% reduction in the demand for cigarettes. This reduction is the result of people smoking fewer cigarettes or quitting altogether. (Chaloupka FJ, et al. The handbook of health economics.) My question for you, where are the experts that agree with your position? Why do you think that the IPCC missed the to you obvious need to topple capitalism? Duck Rodgers posted:There's nothing wrong with being ideological. Whether the authors of that section firmly believe that capitalism is the best way to overcome climate change, or they believe that appealing to capitalist ideas such as private sector leadership is the pragmatic approach makes no difference. Their views on how to combat climate change are shaped by ideology. Ah you meant ideological in that sense, agreed then there will always be an effect from that in any human endeavour. Funny that you sensed a underlying capitalist idealogical bias in that piece, as the chair of that IPCC working group lists as his major influences: Karl Marx, Max Weber and John Dewey. Notable non hardcore capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:For places that implement carbon taxes, what's preventing a Tony Abbott from coming along and winning on a platform of repealing them? quote:The tax has actually become quite popular. “Polls have shown anywhere from 55 to 65 percent support for the tax,” says Stewart Elgie, director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of the Environment. “And it would be hard to find any tax that the majority of people say they like, but the majority of people say they like this tax.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:The IPCC says its both theoretically possible and easy, the rest of the report points out how minor adjustments can have major impacts. Capitalism doesn't necessarily need to go away for climate change to be fixed. However, capitalism as it exists right now is a major driver thanks to a mix of social and economic reasons. The primary drive of capitalism is "more." That's it; just more. More profits. More goods. More production. More consumption. More, more, more, more more. More is always better, especially in profit. This is the kicker; burning fossil fuels is extremely profitable. It's extremely easy to get the energy out of a fossil fuel and turn it into electricity or mechanical energy. Stupidly easy. Burning coal is dirt rear end cheap for making power. Meanwhile consumers are always wanting more. This is a social thing; we are a consumerist, greedy society. Your house is never big enough and you never have enough stuff. Buy, buy, buy, never be satisfied get more. Now you can see where this can be a problem. Goods and nicer houses don't appear from nothing. They need to be made and transported, which requires energy, which increases consumption of fossil fuels. A demand for cheap goods leads to a demand for cheap energy. I don't think you even really need to think about it scientifically to see this. Just consider the kinds of conversations going on in the business world. This quarter's profits were good but we need more. The CEO wants to buy his 37th house so you sales people need to sell more. Let's grow forever and never stop. There are potential solutions that exist within capitalism but they have their own problems. First off, taxing the poo poo out of fossil fuels to pay for the clean up and reduce the demand for them means less cheap energy. More expensive energy means more expensive stuff. Good luck convincing CEO Richy McFatpants to give up some profits over the next four months and good luck telling Worky McBluecollar that the price of literally everything is going to go up but he doesn't get a raise. Good luck convincing that developing country that burning more coal is bad and they should stop because if they do stop it's back to dirt farming and poverty. Really, one of the biggest problems, and why capitalism is under the gun, is that capitalism encourages rampant consumerism. Capitalism is not very good at planning long term on the scale we'd need to to fix this stuff. Capitalism also currently has all the money which means it has most of the political power and it is not willing to give up its money in the short term, consequences be damned, for any reason. Capitalism has mechanisms for dealing with climate change. The problem is that capitalism is running the show and only cares about the numbers next quarter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:I think I understand you better now, thank-you for the clarification. But again, I feel that I have to disagree with you. The entire field of climate study that uses projections of future societal development to calculate the expected temperature rise is normative by your definition, correct? So following your logic, the most likely >2 degrees temperature rise by 2100 is not a scientific but a political consensus because it is based on the study of society? If that is a correct characterisation of your argument, then I don't think those are workable definitions of scientific vs political consensus, at least not for me. Perhaps we are using different definitions of science. My objection was to the characterization of that section of the report (working group 3?) in Popperian terms as solutions that are falsifiable, repeatable etc. Closed systems so to speak. It seems though that you're using science in this instance to refer more to a data driven investigation? In that case I would agree that the report represents a scientific consensus, but science is not apolitical. The working group 3 report is more prescriptive. What options are explored and how data is used are shaped by the normative theoretical framework of the group, and that framework seems to be that of orthodox economics. And that's fine, I don't expect the IPCC to put forward a call for revolution. But it is also important to take a critical eye to the report, as it is with any science, and that includes looking at it from other theoretical frameworks. IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:My question for you, where are the experts that agree with your position? Why do you think that the IPCC missed the to you obvious need to topple capitalism? It is primarily marxists, particularly ecological marxists, who argue that capitalism is incompatible with environmental protection. James O'Connor, John Bellamy Foster, Paul Burkett, and Joel Kovel are a few authors who have written about ecological marxism. The argument goes that capitalism is dependent on the ever increasing production and consumption of commodities. That includes continual production of existing commodities (Ipods) and the creation of new commodities (biofuels, for example). The earth of course has limits and can't support continuous production. For capitalism to become environmentally sustainable, economic growth would need to be de-linked from carbon in the case of climate change and material use more generally. Whether this is possible is a subject of debate even among marxists. Perhaps the IPCC has joined this debate? I think Tim Jacksons Prosperity Without Growth is a decent introduction to the de-linking debate. As for why the IPCC would miss the need to topple capitalism, well it comes down to power. Whether that's direct lobbying and haggling over what gets included, or less direct power in terms of who gets selected to chair and participate (and while the chair may have read Capital, he is certainly not a marxist). Hence my point that the scientific consensus of the IPCC is a political consensus. Of course the IPCC won't call for the overthrow of capitalism, that would be politically unconscionable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
So, this thing (just the abstract, article is paywalled) is making the rounds of the science and tech blogs after being published a couple days ago. Claims to be a method of "large-scale" carbon capture using liquid carbonate microcapsules. However, I swear this same research or something very similar made the rounds a couple of years ago and the conclusion was that you'd need railcars full of baking soda just to keep up with the hourly output of a single coal plant, making it ineffective to put into practice. Anyone else remember that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:So, this thing (just the abstract, article is paywalled) is making the rounds of the science and tech blogs after being published a couple days ago. Claims to be a method of "large-scale" carbon capture using liquid carbonate microcapsules. Whatever it is, Nature Communications isn't exactly the journal I would expect a new effective CCS techniques to be published in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:One of the most effective means of reducing the prevalence of tobacco use is by increasing federal and state excise tax rates. A 10% increase in the price of cigarettes can lead to a 4% reduction in the demand for cigarettes. This reduction is the result of people smoking fewer cigarettes or quitting altogether. Just taking this aside, this does not hold up if we're talking about something like a carbon tax, fuel tax, or even incentives for companies that attempt to mitigate climate change. For starters, smoking is optional (if addictive). People can cut back or quit without starving to death. Fossil fuel use is not so cut and dry. If prices go higher via tax or oil speculation, an individual might cut out a trip here or there to save on fuel costs, but the bulk of it remains the same - commute to work, pick the kids up from school, drive to the grocery, etc. From a corporate perspective, fuel costs for transportation are passed on to the consumer. From a carbon tax perspective, not much to get excited about there either. As long as there is money to be made, corporations will simply pass the increased costs on to consumers. Incentives for, let's call them "climate mitigation companies" is nice on paper, but if you haven't reined in fossil fuel use (which is the primary issue), you're pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than you can sequester. Yes, this is still an improvement, but unless you can sequester more carbon than we're dumping into the atmosphere, we're still backsliding here. Capitalism is ensuring things continue to spiral out of control. Don't look at it scientifically, but rather, logically: We need to cut back or eliminate fossil fuel use. Some of the largest corporations on the planet oppose that, because it is insanely profitable. Politicians live or die on campaign funds. Corporations are the primary source of campaign funds. Thus, there is a large anti-climate change lobby, funded in large part by these same corporate interests, that fund politicians that will enact favorable legislation. Politicians that do not toe the line will lose said funding, and most likely be replaced with someone that will. Because legislation favors continued fossil fuel use, these corporations will continue to rake in the dough, continue to fund their lobbies and misinform the public, and it becomes an endless cycle. The root cause here is captialism. If fossil fuels were not highly profitable, opposition to even admitting climate change is a problem, and breaking our dependence on fossil fuels would fade. Even then, it's a long, uphill battle to reduce/eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. Nuclear powerplants take time to build, so we must continue to use coal for a while. From a transportation perspective, electric vehicles still have limited range, and if everyone suddenly had one today, it would likely stress our power grid to the point of failure. I'll tell you what, if you want to keep capitalism (for the moment), here's an alternative: Strip every ounce of profit made by companies that exploit natural resources, or in any way damage the environment. Put that money towards building nuclear powerplants, battery R&D, electrical grid infrastructure improvements, public transportation improvements, and carbon sequestration R&D and implementation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
So I haven't noticed anything in this thread the last week or so about what appears to be a pretty big story regarding GW. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...andal-ever.html It would appear that the manipulation of data extends beyond a small number of reporting stations. What do we think? On it's face it looks pretty bad, a deliberate manipulation of historical data to make things appear worse than they are. On the other hand, as I'm sure I'll be told here shortly, it's the Telegraph, and it's blasphemy to suggest that anyone would manipulate the data. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So I haven't noticed anything in this thread the last week or so about what appears to be a pretty big story regarding GW. edit: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/temperature-adjustments-transform-arctic-climate-history/ 19 stations checked vs this list. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
I don't know much about it but that article is devoid of any real data. His only link is to another article that he wrote. He has also been firmly in the global warming is a hoax camp for sometime and has a lot of crazy beliefs about second hand smoke and asbestos links to cancer. This is his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker If his article had any actually meat to it I would dig deeper but it reads as a fluff piece. Also do not scroll down and read the comments they're mostly racist and awful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Sounds like you've already made up your mind. Let's have someone look at the data that published on something other than a Wordpress blog. I *haven't* made my mind up, which is why I'm asking here. I'm inclined to think this is one of those deals where a non-climatologist applies methods from whatever other field in an inappropriate way to draw conclusions that perhaps aren't fully supported by the evidence. On the other hand, if this really is a case of someone literally changing numbers to tell a story, it's pretty bad. Does anyone have anything besides snark to offer in way of analysis or rebuttal to the Telegraph article?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What do we think? On it's face it looks pretty bad, a deliberate manipulation of historical data to make things appear worse than they are. [citation needed] edit: lol after two posts saying "sounds like you've made up your mind" you go the "WHAT'S WITH ALL THE SNARK, CHRIST" route
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I *haven't* made my mind up, which is why I'm asking here. I'm inclined to think this is one of those deals where a non-climatologist applies methods from whatever other field in an inappropriate way to draw conclusions that perhaps aren't fully supported by the evidence. On the other hand, if this really is a case of someone literally changing numbers to tell a story, it's pretty bad. Does anyone have anything besides snark to offer in way of analysis or rebuttal to the Telegraph article? Did you perhaps read the post directly above yours?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Well It's a partisan opinion piece summarizing a blog post. At no point does the article attempt to explain why organizations like GHCN are manipulating data, nor does it give them a chance to explain themselves. There is nothing substantive in the article to discuss, as its content consists entirely of emotive buzz-words and canned phrases designed to appeal to persons already convinced of a conspiracy. I don't know anything about The Telegraph (Comparable to the New York Post?) but this reads like filler thrown together a few minutes before deadline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So I haven't noticed anything in this thread the last week or so about what appears to be a pretty big story regarding GW. Let's do some research on Christopher Booker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Climate_change quote:On climate change Booker is one of a number of strong critics in the U.K. press of the United Nations IPCC claims on global warming in the 21st century. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Oh, fun part: He's also an Intelligent Design promoter. So yeah, he probably couldn't science his way out of a paper bag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Sounds like a wingnut welfare candidate. Regardless, this is the appropriate response to bad journalism: Squalid posted:Well It's a partisan opinion piece summarizing a blog post. At no point does the article attempt to explain why organizations like GHCN are manipulating data, nor does it give them a chance to explain themselves. There is nothing substantive in the article to discuss, as its content consists entirely of emotive buzz-words and canned phrases designed to appeal to persons already convinced of a conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:25
|
|