|
Everyone with some public morality recycles and uses energy saving lamps and cuts up their six pack holders before throwing them away so they don't choke a baby dolphin or whatever. And yet, we are still someone completely hosed when it comes to climate change. But I'm sure it'll all work out somehow and so I can focus on my inane and irrelevant rituals to alleviate the guilt I feel at my own helplesness.
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
What alternative plan are you proposing that may eventually shift people from individual helplessness to collective usefulness? None whatsoever? Color me loving surprised. Until you've formulated your master plan, we're going to stick with raising awareness of the problems and small things people can do on their own and continuing to try to shift the paradigm. Yes, it probably won't happen until it's too late to matter. We're well aware of that, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Since the Permian/Triassic extinction is our best model of how a particularly bad global warming scenario would play out, are there any books or other references that go into great detail about conditions on early Triassic Earth besides "it was hot and there wasn't much oxygen and a lot of creatures died"? Most of the material I've seen is either extremely vague and basic or written in nearly impenetrable academic language and usually only focuses on a specific measurement, specific type of organism, etc. (I also wonder if, with a time machine, you could send a few thousand people and a large quantity of supplies, seeds, etc. to any region of the planet just after the Great Dying and they could somehow stay alive in that period. Anyone up for a Lystrosaurus burger?) Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Completely ignoring of course that everybody pulling together and making small changes (you know, drive less, walk more, recycle a goddamned can once in a while) massive changes would result. Series DD Funding posted:Absolutely false. Vaginapocalypse posted:This is adorable. I can't remember who in this thread are the climate change denialists and who are the ... well, people that understand what's going on. It's been a while since I've paid attention (seriously, this thread needs a list of names or something). Does everyone making small changes actually make much of a difference? One of the people on this science panel I was attending claimed someone along the lines of "Every little bit helps", and that lots of people all doing a little thing wrong makes a big difference, so conversely so will a lot of people doing a little bit right. Is this a point of contention?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Make sure to turn off your phone charger when you're not charging your phone, that should do it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:I can't remember who in this thread are the climate change denialists and who are the ... well, people that understand what's going on. It's been a while since I've paid attention (seriously, this thread needs a list of names or something). Does everyone making small changes actually make much of a difference? One of the people on this science panel I was attending claimed someone along the lines of "Every little bit helps", and that lots of people all doing a little thing wrong makes a big difference, so conversely so will a lot of people doing a little bit right. Is this a point of contention? It is pretty much just useful as a way to bring more attention to an issue rather than a solution itself. If people stop at the small stuff it doesn't do much at all because the potentially recoverable waste/energy from residential sources is a tiny tiny fraction of the whole.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:It is pretty much just useful as a way to bring more attention to an issue rather than a solution itself. If people stop at the small stuff it doesn't do much at all because the potentially recoverable waste/energy from residential sources is a tiny tiny fraction of the whole. On the other hand there is the risk that people start to think their small behavioural changes might be enough and if they do one good thing a day they are free of sins.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:I can't remember who in this thread are the climate change denialists and who are the ... well, people that understand what's going on. It's been a while since I've paid attention (seriously, this thread needs a list of names or something). Does everyone making small changes actually make much of a difference? One of the people on this science panel I was attending claimed someone along the lines of "Every little bit helps", and that lots of people all doing a little thing wrong makes a big difference, so conversely so will a lot of people doing a little bit right. Is this a point of contention? Small changes add up to big changes. One of the issues is a lot of people look at the problem and go "well gently caress what the hell can I do?" Even so global warming caused by human activity means that humans need to change how we act. You can't change group behavior without changing individual behavior along the way. It might not seem like much to one person if they ride their bike to run errands instead of drive their car but when millions of people do it it becomes a pretty big change. It by itself won't change the world or fix the problem but it's definitely part of the solution. It's also a good way to encourage people to think about those little things they tend to forget about. It would be preferable for a million people to make small changes than no changes at all. It also has to do with perception; a lot of people seem to think "living greener" means "literally live in a tiny shack in the woods and eat nothing but potatoes." America loves its conspicuous consumption and we have serious problems with things like people buying gigantic, inefficient SUVs just because they can. Taken together piles and piles of small changes add up to big ones. Once again it isn't going to fix everything but I'm pretty sure it would benefit the whole issue if more people were aware that yes, in fact, small lifestyle changes are worth making on an individual level. It's way easier to convince somebody that maybe solar isn't so bad if they're already thinking of stuff like "well I should waste less stuff and do I really need such a huge car?"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:On the other hand there is the risk that people start to think their small behavioural changes might be enough and if they do one good thing a day they are free of sins. On the flip side, if people are told that nothing they do is good enough often enough, they'll stop trying.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Lots of small changes add up, but lots of big problems also add up.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:42
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Trabisnikof posted:On the flip side, if people are told that nothing they do is good enough often enough, they'll stop trying. Yes, making changes in your energy consumption and purchasing habits will 'help' in that it might accustom you earlier to a life somewhat less comfortable (assuming we're talking about people with moderate incomes in the first world) as unless you're wealthy, that's going to inevitable for the majority of the populace. It also might help your sense of hypocrisy and potentially just increase your awareness of your ecological footprint in general. That's all...'good'. The potential problem is that it masks the scope of the issue. Relaying the true extent of it to someone doesn't necessarily mean the only inevitable reaction is "Well, my decision to reduce meat consumption twice a week apparently does nothing, so gently caress it I'm getting an SUV with bacon interior and voting for the GOP ticket, lol greens!". It can also mean that being aware of what is truly required actually focuses the persons energy in the areas that have a better chance of making a difference, and those areas are largely political and economical that are far outside the ability of the individual to affect on their own without large policy changes. Things like organized pressure to make any politician who utters the word "may" with respect to AGW CH occurring or does address CH as a significant part of their platform immediately translate into the equivalent of a Josh Duggar hugging photo. Making it economically untenable for media outlets to have panelists/segments that consist of discredited denialist talking points without seriously jeopardizing the majority of their viewerbase. You're not going to get people to have that level of participation if you just hector them about their personal energy usage.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
(Apologies if this has already been posted) There are far more letters at the site. This is how scientists feel The trend I see in the responses with respect to what they feel has to be done seems to be clear: Significant policy and economic changes, directed by government. Perhaps they fear getting beat up by Naomi Klein, or perhaps they simply understand the scope of the issue...? [quote=Pieter Tans NOAA Earth System Research Lab] Our current economic system requires perpetual growth to function well. How can we redesign our economy to function in the zero growth environment that the Earth will force upon us? Our observations suggest that may occur sooner rather than later. It is easy to see why progress has been so inadequate. [/quote] [quote=Dr John Fasullo Project Scientist, Climate analysis section National Centre for Atmospheric Research ] Our changing climate might provide just the impetus we need to rework our public institutions for the better, in search of a global solution. Why now? Why this issue? Because our success in dealing with it lies beyond ourselves and our world is at stake.[/quote] [quote=Professor Peter Cox Theme Leader for Climate Change and Sustainable Futures University of Exeter] As an optimist, I am hopeful that we can solve the climate problem. It is a huge challenge because it requires international collaboration, and for people to act on behalf of others. But that also means that tacking climate change could be a catalyst to develop a much better relationship between humans and the environment, and a more just and connected global humanity.[/quote] [quote=Dr. Kevin E Trenberth Distinguished Senior Scientist National Center for Atmospheric Research] Changing the economics of energy and even subsidizing renewables while appropriately taxing non-renewable fuels could bring about a major revolution led by the private sector. It won’t stop climate change, but then we don’t have to stop it entirely, but we do have slow it down a lot to enable adaptation to occur in a reasonable fashion. [/quote] [quote=Michael E. Mann Distinguished Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) ] The most vociferous opposition to action comes from politicians in the pay of fossil fuel special interests. That special interests and those who shill for them would readily mortgage the health of our planet for future generations for the sake of short-term profit angers me.[/quote] [quote=Professor Pramod Aggarwal Regional Program Leader (South Asia)] Addressing simultaneously issues of poverty, human capital, institutions and governance are equally important to ensure that food security, and as a consequent happiness and quality of life, increases for all.[/quote] [quote=Professor Corey Bradshaw Director of Ecological Modelling The University of Adelaide] Mark my words, you plutocrats, denialists, fossil-fuel hacks and science charlatans – your time will come when you will be backed against the wall by the full wrath of billions who have suffered from your greed and stupidity, and I’ll be first in line to put you there.[/quote]  Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 14:32 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Small changes add up to big changes. One of the issues is a lot of people look at the problem and go "well gently caress what the hell can I do?" Even so global warming caused by human activity means that humans need to change how we act. You can't change group behavior without changing individual behavior along the way. It might not seem like much to one person if they ride their bike to run errands instead of drive their car but when millions of people do it it becomes a pretty big change. It by itself won't change the world or fix the problem but it's definitely part of the solution. It's also a good way to encourage people to think about those little things they tend to forget about. What happens when you live in a suburb where it's 5 miles to everything and riding a bike means you have a death wish? Millions of people can't make small changes because they live in an environment that was designed around cheap oil from top to bottom.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What happens when you live in a suburb where it's 5 miles to everything and riding a bike means you have a death wish? Millions of people can't make small changes because they live in an environment that was designed around cheap oil from top to bottom. It doesn't matter where you live there are lifestyle changes you can make. Yeah that person might not be able to bike or walk anywhere but there's other stuff they can do. Plant trees, recycle and reuse whenever possible, turn the lights off, avoid stuff that causes power leeching, switch to a more economical vehicle, eat less meat...list goes on. Yes some people situationally are incapable of certain things but absolutely everybody can make changes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Come on people, there are many (completely inconsequential) changes you can make! We're (not) all in this together!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It doesn't matter where you live there are lifestyle changes you can make. Yeah that person might not be able to bike or walk anywhere but there's other stuff they can do. Plant trees, recycle and reuse whenever possible, turn the lights off, avoid stuff that causes power leeching, switch to a more economical vehicle, eat less meat...list goes on. Yes some people situationally are incapable of certain things but absolutely everybody can make changes. Sure, and this proves that everyone can do a thing. Which is nice. Unfortunately, given the global scale of the problem, this won't be nearly enough and in the end might not even be a significant factor - which is what I think people here are saying. Society can't even stop people from speeding or smoking weed, and a lot of people are poorly educated and living under severe financial strain. These are the people you're expecting to make big changes to their lives, based on what? Your say-so? Their own ability to claw through the propaganda BS and read peer-reviewed scientific articles and form their own well-informed opinion? While simultaneously lacking both the means and the ability. Yeah. This isn't realistic, even if it were somehow effective. The climate change issue is very closely tied to issues of social equality and democracy; most of the voting public doesn't know about the issue, is misinformed about the issue, doesn't care about the issue compared to their daily challenges and can't afford to do anything about it even if the knew and cared. Compared to the other issues plaguing the majority of the world (not just the US!), global warming isn't even a distant tenth on the list of things people care about, and the reason for that is simple: To the vast majority of people in actually democratic societies, the issue isn't even visible - and won't be until it turns acute. The people in power consider global warming just one issue among many, and won't care to do anything about it so long as it doesn't have immediate benefit to them (let's not kid ourselves here, nobody takes the reins of a nation out of altruism and selflessness, those kinds of people don't come to power). The reason for climate pessimism is simply that the nature of humanity is working against us as a species and that things won't change until they have to - at which point it will already be too late. People will suffer and die en masse as a result. The only realistic thing that can happen to stop this is a complete revolution; not only must environmental policy become the foremost concern normally reserved national security and military power but society must change into one that can plan and act with forethought, so that a long-term view of industry, science and production prevails. This means that as a society, we would have to end corporate and human greed; consumerism and market liberalist capitalism has to become as disgusting a philosophy as social darwinism for this to happen. We would also have to have literal peace on earth; most of the resources spent on military might would have to be redirected towards environmental work and relief efforts to start the massive efforts needed to repair the current damage. And then, once industry is as green as possible (this can only happen with nuclear, but I'm probably preaching to the choir on that topic) and all nations are committing great resources and manpower towards restructuring our society to be sustainable; then it's reasonable to expect people to live lives as environmentally friendly as possible. In other words, we are - as a species - hosed. The worst case scenario will happen, no magic science will come along to save us from global thermal momentum (what the hell could even do that and who would pay for it?), the poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer until the breaking point where food/water riots erupt and society dissolves into resource-war and chaos. The end will be nukes launched from the first big destabilized nation to experience loss of control of the military to some madman. Bummer. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 16:19 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Since having a child is the most environmentally damaging thing a single person can do, the best way to prevent climate change is to murder children. That way we will prevent people from using up precious resources in the future and we will minimize the damage done to the planet. Do your part - murder children. It's the best way you can help the planet.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:In other words, we are - as a species - hosed. The worst case scenario will happen, no magic science will come along to save us from global thermal momentum (what the hell could even do that and who would pay for it?), the poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer until the breaking point where food/water riots erupt and society dissolves into resource-war and chaos. The end will be nukes launched from the first big destabilized nation to experience loss of control of the military to some madman. this post is insane but solar radiation management via SO2 seeding would cost like 50million/year max, literally any nation could afford to do it singlehandedly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure just throwing our hands up and going "welp we're hosed, might as well enjoy it as much as we can until we can't!" is exactly the wrong opinion. I also really don't think that total revolution is a requirement. The issues are becoming more apparent and people are being shown the mountains of mass produced trash. Awareness is spreading about the issue and more and more people are caring about it. Politicians will care about it when we do. That's kind of how democracy works; politicians do whatever it takes to get themselves reelected. If the voting public suddenly gives a poo poo about global warming and environmental science then politicians will too. It isn't like that's entirely out of the question either. I live in Pennsylvania and as conservative as much of the state can be there is one unwritten political rule that is pretty major; do not gently caress with the forest. As conservative as the state can be sometimes (it's a swing state so it's pretty crazy) even our most conservative politicians are buddied up with environmental science and we have managed forests everywhere. This is a state that was, at one point, literally clear cut border to border. People here saw the awful poo poo that happens when you neglect the environment and now we're seeing the opposite; if you take good care of the woods good poo poo happens. And sometimes it's a matter of using the right message. It's balls easy to get a woods-dwelling good old boy Republican to care about environmental change with "hey if you manage the environment properly there's going to be deer loving everywhere and you can go kill one every year. Sound good?"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:but solar radiation management via SO2 seeding would cost like 50million/year max, literally any nation could afford to do it singlehandedly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Sounds like a terrible idea that does not address the reason for needing to spend 50mil on sulfur dioxide in the first place. Sure it does, the reason is increased global temperatures.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What happens when you live in a suburb where it's 5 miles to everything and riding a bike means you have a death wish? Millions of people can't make small changes because they live in an environment that was designed around cheap oil from top to bottom. It's neither here nor there but unless you live on a mountain top in bear country cycling 5 miles is trivial. If it really is a problem just get an electric bike or a moped.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It's neither here nor there but unless you live on a mountain top in bear country cycling 5 miles is trivial. If it really is a problem just get an electric bike or a moped. The carbon footprint of a dead body is minimal, that's true.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It's neither here nor there but unless you live on a mountain top in bear country cycling 5 miles is trivial. If it really is a problem just get an electric bike or a moped. It isn't the distance that's the problem. Biking 5 miles on heavily trafficked suburban roads with no sidewalks that are specifically designed to be as unfriendly to going somewhere without a car as possible is tempting death.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It isn't the distance that's the problem. Biking 5 miles on heavily trafficked suburban roads with no sidewalks that are specifically designed to be as unfriendly to going somewhere without a car as possible is tempting death. Fair enough - can't really relate to that style of urban planning.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
I think political action is one the most effective things that groups of individuals can do. If you think the political framework that can respond to Climate Change is socialism, liberal democracy or something else entirely, there will need to be political support from people to get there. So responding to Climate Change requires political action from large groups of people. We need to throw out the deniers, and either by the ballot or the bullet, we'll need masses to do it. One of the most effective ways to engage people in political systems is to give them buy-in, make them feel like they have already committed to the cause. The Obama campaign was aggressive about asking people to phone-bank/block-walk/etc not so much because they needed the volunteers, but because their research showed that if you volunteered you were fairly sure to vote and thus limited Get Out the Vote resources could be spent elsewhere. They could check you off as an sure vote as soon as you show up to volunteer. These less than sufficient personal actions (changing transportation, food, energy or land use) serve the same purpose. If you decided to give something up in your life to try and meagerly help the climate, you're not going to vote for the climate denier. And as others have mentioned, the foot in the door technique applies here too. If you've already given up something for Climate Change, you're more likely to be willing to accept the bigger gut punch down the road.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
The only death you risk in a suburban hell while biking is exhaustion from trying to get wherever you want to go. This thread is so up it's own rear end about how hard it is to be eco-friendly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Eat less (not none, less) meat, turn the lights off, and make thoughtful decisions. I think the argument around taking small steps now to make it easier for larger changes later is powerful. No, changing your individual practices won't make a whole lot of difference, but it opens the pathway to broad popular support that can create the systemic change we need. Act with purpose and do what you can. Ask people to make the small changes they are willing to make, and then a bit down the road ask them to make another change. Broad societal change is going to be slow and painful, but it well happen.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm pretty sure just throwing our hands up and going "welp we're hosed, might as well enjoy it as much as we can until we can't!" is exactly the wrong opinion. I also really don't think that total revolution is a requirement. The issues are becoming more apparent and people are being shown the mountains of mass produced trash. Awareness is spreading about the issue and more and more people are caring about it. Politicians will care about it when we do. That's kind of how democracy works; politicians do whatever it takes to get themselves reelected. If the voting public suddenly gives a poo poo about global warming and environmental science then politicians will too. That's not my opinion. I just have no illusions. There's a whole range of possibilities as to what might happen, and they range from highly unlikely (the sustainability revolution, magic science solution) to the more likely (environmental reforms, drought and famine, slow change but only hundreds of millions of lives lost) to the very probable (action comes too late, severe drought and famine, war, risk of nuclear war). Predicting the future is hard, but there's a lot of historical presedence for acting too late, and there's not a lot in current mainstream politics giving me much hope; we're well aware of the problem but nobody with any power is doing anything, there's no international cooperation and there's little hope of improvement on that part. Lastly, that's nice for Pennsylvania. Care to explain how your Pennsylvanian environmental awareness is going to change industrial Asia? What is your good old boy Republican going to do about China, India, Indonesia? Africa? South America? In a way, you're proving my point; even there nothing happened until the consequences became obvious. Combatting global warming will take global effort, and things are very, very different in the rest of the world; the developing world is not going to care about the environment until it is absolutely forced to, in the pursuit of western living standards. Just look at China, and the terrifying pollution problem they have. Not even slowing them down, and the alternative energy sources they are looking into may come too late or never pan out.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Lastly, that's nice for Pennsylvania. Care to explain how your Pennsylvanian environmental awareness is going to change industrial Asia? What is your good old boy Republican going to do about China, India, Indonesia? Africa? South America? In a way, you're proving my point; even there nothing happened until the consequences became obvious. Combatting global warming will take global effort, and things are very, very different in the rest of the world; the developing world is not going to care about the environment until it is absolutely forced to, in the pursuit of western living standards. Just look at China, and the terrifying pollution problem they have. Not even slowing them down, and the alternative energy sources they are looking into may come too late or never pan out. You're missing the trees for the forest. Yes, no single actor can mitigate Climate Change alone. But conversely, we need many single actors to do it. Yes, if we get Pennsylvania on board, we still need Punjab, but that doesn't mean getting Pennsylvania on board is useless. In fact, there is value behind momentum. It only takes a few economically influential actors to change larger policy. Look at California and vehicle emissions standards in the US. California was never going to force stricter rules nationwide, but the economics made it more valuable to often just manufacture 50-state cars rather than 49-state cards. And now, the California standards will be the national standard for the 2016 model year. California is still a good example more directly on Climate Change, as AB 32 (CA's GHG emissions law) isn't going to stop Climate Change. AB 32 in fact, sucks in many ways. But the impact is still good and its happening now and we've learned lessons that when policymakers in China/India/et al look to develop policy, they can learn from the issues in the Californian system. You're right, the future is hard to predict and the potential impacts of Climate Change are vast, that's why any mitigation that can get done now is good, even if it don't address the larger problem directly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:That's not my opinion. I just have no illusions. What happens when somebody says "hey Pennsylvania has nice forests. Why don't we ask Pennsylvania how they did that?" Trends have to start somewhere and the change won't happen overnight. The point is though that change can happen. The clear cutting of the state happened when environmental science was either new or didn't exist, depending on the area. Yes some of the lessons are learned the hard way and it's going to be hard to get developing nations on board but trust me it isn't impossible. If we can convince extreme far right wing people that environmentalism isn't all bad then there's hope we can convince pretty much anybody. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 20:21 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If we can convince extreme far right wing people that environmentalism isn't all bad then there's hope we can convince pretty much anybody. Uh...yeah, kind of goes without saying. If you manage to change the perspective of the most calcified opposition, then it naturally follows you will have less difficulty with other swaths of the populace that aren't so ideologically entrenched. Look, go for it. It's all good, even if it doesn't have an impact on climate change, there are a host of environmental issues that get a benefit from acting more consciously about your carbon footprint - smog/waste/resource sustainability etc, that can at least make life some degrees (not literal C) less lovely than they would be regardless of global warming - if not for you then perhaps for other portions of society. I just fail to see how demonstrating ecological mindfulness actually moves the needle to any meaningful degree, especially when we're talking about the opposition that actually takes pleasure in consuming as much as possible in order to mock Earth Day participants. You lead by example, you're just a pathetic liberal tree-hugging vegan hippy, if not you get the "Lol AlGore took a plane to that CC conference!" argument. This isn't a fringe group, this is the _base_. I don't believe we have time to try and reason with people who act out of spite. Political action and economic pressure is far more likely to have an impact than bragging about your solar panels in the break room to your fellow coworker who still listens to Rush. A guy who drives his SUV to climate change political action committee meetings is likely far more valuable in actually combating the source of the problem than someone who takes transit and buys local.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Listen, what's the essence of your point here? "Things aren't so bad"? I disagree. The absolute worst thing right now would be even more sugarcoating of the issue. Things are bad, and not improving. This means we need big changes, on a political level. "Some steps have been taking in the right direction"? Sure, some steps. Compared to what needs to happen, insignificant, but you're right that symbolic progress has been made. It's not enough, though, and the underlying issues - the reasons we're even in this mess and struggling to change things - are not addressed by merely setting a good example. The problem is bigger than anything you can observe or impact locally. "Change has to start somewhere"? Yeah, absolutely. By definition this is true, but on it's own it is nothing more than a basic platitude. Not just any change will do, and my personal opinion is that telling people that these small efforts make an impact on the bigger problem creates a false impression and a false hope that things will be better if we just recycle and get a prius. Yeah, those things need to happen, but they need to happen as part of a larger societal change and they need to be mandatory, not merely suggestions. Now, I may have misunderstood you. You may not be patting yourself on the back for all this amazing progress, and you may realize that a lot more needs to happen than just incentivizing some individuals into living a little greener. Your post still gives me a feeling of upbeat naiveté that as long as we're making a small effort, we're doing something and that something will matter. This just isn't the case, and in the end it's just another kind of sugarcoating - it leaves a false and dangerous impression that (specifically americans) living a bit greener is a meaningful effort in the grand scheme of things. It isn't. Again; I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, or that it won't help in some small way: People should live greener regardless. But this is not the core of the issue and it's not where meaningful impact on the problem will be made. Please don't waste any more time pretending I ever said that we should give up, throw our hands in the air and nihilistically go quietly into the night. All I'm doing is not sugarcoating things, and presenting a realistic scenario for humanity if current trends continue. Let me put it to you this way: What do you think will happen if climate change is left to run its course? In fact, that's an open question to all of you. What's the worst case scenario, what's humanity likely to do (when) and what will that likely accomplish?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
If destroying the biosphere with acid rain is our big solution to global warming, we deserve to go extinct. gently caress sulfur dioxide.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
It seems to me that the time for individual consumers making small changes and choosing more efficient choices was in the 1970s and 1980s. By the 1990s it was clearly time for large scale government intervention, in the 2000s it was well past time for large scale intervention and we were guaranteeing serious and irreversible damage to the world's ecosystems. Now we're most of the way into the 2010s and what do we have? Vague promises about 2020 or 2030; "after my personal office term comes to an end". We're like a drug addict taking more and more severe steps to stay high. Yeah, I'm stealing this T.V right now because I'm sick but I swear after that I'm going clean. Honestly I think a lot of people overestimate our ability to prevent or stop warming. We have a problem where global economies are structured around permanent growth and we're reaching the limits of the planet's ability to sustain that growth. Even if we replace all of our energy production with "green" solutions we're still going to face hard limits in growth due to simple thermodynamics. Its impossible for everyone on the planet to live like a Westerner and to use as much energy as a Westerner for any long period of time. The political prospect of taking action in appropriate proportion with the problem of global warming is essentially synonymous with declaring that its okay for economies to retract.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:It seems to me that the time for individual consumers making small changes and choosing more efficient choices was in the 1970s and 1980s. You're not saying anything essentially different from what's already been repeated a few times on this page. Do you have an alternate solution that's more likely to work than current efforts? We're trying to shift the Overton Window. If you're not going to help, then at least stop making GBS threads all over the people who are.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:You're not saying anything essentially different from what's already been repeated a few times on this page. Do you have an alternate solution that's more likely to work than current efforts? We're trying to shift the Overton Window. If you're not going to help, then at least stop making GBS threads all over the people who are. what
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:It seems to me that the time for individual consumers making small changes and choosing more efficient choices was in the 1970s and 1980s. By the 1990s it was clearly time for large scale government intervention, in the 2000s it was well past time for large scale intervention and we were guaranteeing serious and irreversible damage to the world's ecosystems. Now we're most of the way into the 2010s and what do we have? Vague promises about 2020 or 2030; "after my personal office term comes to an end". We're like a drug addict taking more and more severe steps to stay high. Yeah, I'm stealing this T.V right now because I'm sick but I swear after that I'm going clean. And that is why simple living has an increased advocacy on top of it all. There are only so many resources to go around and a lot of people are deliberately consuming less and living more simply to help alleviate that. Pretty sure I pointed that out, really, that one of the biggest issues is just how loving gluttonous western society is. Maybe I didn't but even so systemic changes like you're pointing out are needed are largely dependent on things that ultimately boil down to individuals. "Politicians are unwilling to take any sort of political action on the issue." Oh they loving will be willing if that's where the votes go. "People want to consume as much as possible all the time at any cost." OK then let's teach people how to live good, happy lives without the excessive consumption. Let's work on changing society so that people aren't endeavoring to be the guy that has so many cars and such a huge garage that it has a loving elevator for cars. Maybe we should quit worshiping wealth and telling the guy with the most stuff that he's the best of us all. "The third world wants to live how the first world is living." Then let's change how the first world lives. "There is a massive misinformation campaign geared toward keeping people using fossil fuels because it makes some people rich." Fine, let's counter that information in any way we can. "Capitalism dictates that we live this way." Then let's get rid of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Forgive me if this is oversimplified, but it seems to me like for there to be a significant change, it would either require businesses to basically say "yes, we are okay with making far, far less money," or governments stepping in and saying "we are going to tax you based on the amount of damage you do to the environment, since in this theoretical example we can quantify that easily." I have little faith in either of these things happening. Individuals can generate 100% of their energy from the sun, or tidal power, or unicorn farts - if people stop using electricity from a utility company, I really doubt they will shut their coal plants down when they could just sell the power from them to manufacturers and other companies whose only concerns involve showing a powerpoint presentation about how they're going to make more money this year than last to a board of directors.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:And that is why simple living has an increased advocacy on top of it all. There are only so many resources to go around and a lot of people are deliberately consuming less and living more simply to help alleviate that. Pretty sure I pointed that out, really, that one of the biggest issues is just how loving gluttonous western society is. Maybe I didn't but even so systemic changes like you're pointing out are needed are largely dependent on things that ultimately boil down to individuals. Yes I totally agree, but there is an important point that if people were going volunteer to live simpler lives with the goal of reducing environmental damage they would have already started doing it. Some people have already started doing that, however we have to accept that the majority won't unless they are required to. In my mind there is no solution that doesn't have strict government oversight and direction. I would argue that it is better to advocate politically than to spend that same effort trying to recycle more or whatever. 5 minutes writing letters beats 5 minutes using your bike instead of a car. ToxicSlurpee posted:"Capitalism dictates that we live this way." Then let's get rid of capitalism. And this really gets down to the ultimate scale of the what we're discussing. A true "solution" to global warming where we immediately stop the long term damage and mitigate it to the point where we prevent bodily harm to large numbers of vulnerable people would very literally require this scale of global change. Not a few people biking instead of driving, but a total overhaul of our political and economic systems. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 22:26 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:23
|
|