|
As expected... ...for a brief time period, anyway. It's loving Winter. It is pitch dark there, now.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
 This was our front yard a week ago. In Finland. There's a joke in there somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Are there any good sites for projections and simulations of how climate change might affect different areas of the world vis a vis food production capacity and general weather.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Are there any good sites for projections and simulations of how climate change might affect different areas of the world vis a vis food production capacity and general weather. Similar but different; are there any good climate blogs written by individual researchers/scientists? Something on the level of schneier.com, old fivethirtyeight.com, or old badastronomy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
blowfish posted:hmmm no but neither will green government lead to effective environmental protection~ how come so Green parties are a direct descedant of the green enviromentalist movements of 1960-1990s which pretty much introduced environmental policy as a distinct field of policy in Western political systems
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:how come so Basically because the ideologies of the 1970s-80s still dominate the parties and they haven't adapted to the times. The easiest example is how nuclear power plants were much maligned in the 70s & 80s so modern green parties focus on getting rid of nuclear at any cost. This is fine, except what often happens is that nuclear plants are shut down in favor of coal plants, which fucks the planet over even more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Also GMOs and generally methods of sustainability and climate change adaptation involving anything that could be termed intensive agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
El Perkele posted:how come so We got... * protected species lists (which haven't changed much except for growing some more and having some bans for collecting individual specimens extended to include imported things) * loads of little nature reserves around particular habitats/species (which often end up going to poo poo due to being small) * only sometimes national parks large enough and in sufficiently undisturbed areas to keep working without management * rubber dinghies throwing themselves in front of Japanese whaling ships All of these things work as well or as badly as they did in the 1960s and are only effective when focused on a small scale or on very well defined targets (i.e. save the whales or particular patches of land) while being grossly inadequate when dealing with climate change effects or when applied to minimising damage from land use or fishing across entire nations. It generally takes quite a lot of effort to get an organised programme going like in the case of the EU habitats directive which gives blanket protection to the entire area used by populations of target species or target habitats and penalises degradation of these habitats. Even in this case country-level conservation policy had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s state of the art during the 2000s with this likely-accidentally-effective directive and the EU still spends conservation money mainly on scaled-up land sharing (i.e. organic farms) rather than on land sparing (i.e. sustainable intensification). suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
blowfish posted:We got... That's a weird list since it only contains very particular aspects of environmental policy and completely disregards stuff like water and energy management, urban planning, ecosystem services etc. Saying that "green governments cannot lead to effective environmental protection" is a pretty bold claim. I could just as well claim that social democratic governments cannot lead to effective socialdemocratic societies, and say that minimum wage laws are a relic. It's not quite solid enough - and green movements and parties have been at the forefront of actually drafting and proposing environmental legislation, often against considerable adversity from other political factions. Oh, and the most visible EU conservation projects in Baltic area are area conservation and water/soil management projects, not organic farming, unless farming subsidies are lumped underneath conservation policies, which just makes everything insane Unless your contention with green environmental protection is that capitalist and environmentally sustainable socities are at odds and green parties are just complicit in long-term destruction of environment for short-term monetary gain in which case I vehemently agree :v
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Basically because the ideologies of the 1970s-80s still dominate the parties and they haven't adapted to the times. The easiest example is how nuclear power plants were much maligned in the 70s & 80s so modern green parties focus on getting rid of nuclear at any cost. Energy policies are not the end-all be-all of environmental policies, which encompass a whole more subjects than "nuclear power all day long". Complaining about environmental politics and parties "because nuclear power" is extremely often employed as something like concern trolling. Just saying. El Perkele fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
If you consider the fact countries like Germany and Sweden are replacing their nuclear plants with coal due to Green ideologies it's a perfectly valid complaint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:Energy policies are not the end-all be-all of environmental policies, which encompass a whole more subjects than "nuclear power all day long". That's one example. The GMO controversy is another example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
When you think about it, it's really the environmentalist's fault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
From a US perspective, I would add: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Those are just off the top of my head. All do massive amounts to protect our environment and society to this day. In Addition to the aforementioned Endangered Species Act and Wilderness Act that have had massive positive impacts and continue to do so. Also it is the Clean Air Act that is allowing the EPA to put in place the Clean Power Plan without a new act of Congress. So blame the environmentalists for not being "good enough" but it is ignorant to pretend that the impacts of the laws passed on the backs of their efforts only work on the small scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:From a US perspective, I would add: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Those are just off the top of my head. All do massive amounts to protect our environment and society to this day. I didn't know Nixon was an environmentalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I didn't know Nixon was an environmentalist. chalking everything legislative that happened up to the president of the moment isn't just poo poo politics its poo poo posting
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:chalking everything legislative that happened up to the president of the moment isn't just poo poo politics its poo poo posting He specifically pushed for some of those policies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Nixon was a better president than Reagan or Bush jr.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He specifically pushed for some of those policies. And those policies rock. When I was a kid no restaurant or cafe in the city had outdoor seating next to the sidewalk because it was disgusting outside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I didn't know Nixon was an environmentalist. Here's something that could help complete your education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Richard_Nixon
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
It seems to me that the conversation about "what to do" often hovers at a certain level of abstraction. For me the question I have to continuously ask myself is whether or not I am functioning as a beneficiary of the active and created system that is actively producing planetary degradation and resource inequity resulting in climate change and systemic poverty. Of course I need to understand and come to some decisions for myself about the nature of that system. If I determine that I am functioning as a beneficiary, do I care about that? If I do, consistent with the OP, where are the various levels of action and response available to me? What would need to change about my own life if I cared, both immediately and in terms of how I conceive of a future? What would need to change about the "way of life" in which I was actively participating and from which I was actively benefiting? How would I go about participating in the possibility of such change? Are there points of leverage for action, non-cooperation, etc.? Do I have a coherent change model in general and change models specific to the sorts of changes I might imagine as benevolent? The level of abstraction is often pinned to some version of keeping in tact a way of life, and therefore status as a beneficiary, of the system producing the effect. The reasoning and argumentation often seems to proceed backward from there (Arkane being the poster child for this). Aspects of the way of life are treated as necessary, it seems to me. As a beneficiary, typing this on an iPad, etc. my own determination of necessity is not entirely trustworthy in this matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Are there any good sites for projections and simulations of how climate change might affect different areas of the world vis a vis food production capacity and general weather. From what I understand the modeling isn't nearly strong/detailed/reliable enough to point to specific climate changes for a specific region. The are guesstimates, mostly based on long term fairly obvious things, like overall warming shifting growing zones towards the poles, but even something like rainfall depends on so many variables there are no solid projections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
doverhog posted:If you consider the fact countries like Germany and Sweden are replacing their nuclear plants with coal due to Green ideologies it's a perfectly valid complaint. It is a valid complaint, but it reduces the scope of environmental policies to one or two aspects of it, while completely ignoring the larger picture - and it doesn't even start to consider the intra-envipol/envir.movement schisms regarding energy policies. Environmental policies and conservation are a broad issue. Many environmental politicians and movements do not really focus 100 % on GMO or energy policies, whereas popular discussions about environmental policies are unusually focused on nuclear policies and ignore other areas of that field of politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
It's also not really the Greens' fault that Germany produces more coal energy than a few years ago. The exit from nuclear energy was decided by a conservative government and it was supposed to be replaced entirely by renewables, but some local politicians and most energy companies decided to push for coal, too. This is even criticised by the current federal minister of energy, who is a social democrat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:It's also not really the Greens' fault that Germany produces more coal energy than a few years ago. The exit from nuclear energy was decided by a conservative government and it was supposed to be replaced entirely by renewables, but some local politicians and most energy companies decided to push for coal, too. This is even criticised by the current federal minister of energy, who is a social democrat. Have they released responses criticizing the shift towards coal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Also GMOs and generally methods of sustainability and climate change adaptation involving anything that could be termed intensive agriculture. To be fair, things like Bt crops and crops that encourage the increased use of pesticides are not good from a wider ecological perspective. Not to say GMOs are bad, just that some applications are suspect at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:To be fair, things like Bt crops and crops that encourage the increased use of pesticides are not good from a wider ecological perspective. Crops that encourage increased use of pesticides are known as "organic".
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Crops that encourage increased use of pesticides are known as "organic". We get it, you're mad cause some hippie stole your lover but your neverending need to beat up on the strawman dumbo-greenie adds nothing to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We get it, you're mad cause some hippie stole your lover but your neverending need to beat up on the strawman dumbo-greenie adds nothing to this thread. It is a common misconception that organic crops require fewer pesticides and fewer resources. You can see this misconception (at least in terms of the pesticides) in the person I quoted. Correcting this misconception is required for productive policy regarding resource usage, especially a major field like agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It is a common misconception that organic crops require fewer pesticides and fewer resources. You can see this misconception (at least in terms of the pesticides) in the person I quoted. Actually, the post you quoted never mentioned organics at all. That's why it is a very blatant strawman. Lotka Volterra posted:To be fair, things like Bt crops and crops that encourage the increased use of pesticides are not good from a wider ecological perspective. Look! No mention of organics at all! But yet you had to jump in at attack your organics strawman in the climate change thread. Also afaik everything in Lotka Volterra's post is valid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, the post you quoted never mentioned organics at all. That's why it is a very blatant strawman. You seem very testy about organics. Do you happen to live in the Pacific Northwest?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You seem very testy about organics? Do you happen to live in the Pacific Northwest? No I really don't give a poo poo about organics. I just find your shitposting in the climate thread very annoying. No one but you is talking about organics. Anyway, for those who wanted the discuss the topic of this thread, have some video of the SoCalGas leak: https://youtu.be/exfJ8VPQDTY 1/4 of the methane emissions of California....
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof already said it as well as I could have, I was not at all referring to organic versus GMO crops but thanks for the casual dismissal of something I never said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
The anti-GMO crowd often seems to conflate Monsanto and GMO. I try and nuance their view by pointing out Monstanto, along with most of big agri, is pretty terrible. That doesn't then mean that the process of creating GMOs is terrible, as it can do cool and good things like extend the climate that crops can be grown in so resource poor areas can use more growing area, or add in nutrients to a crop that otherwise doesn't have it so key dietary needs can be addressed in the developing world. Not all GMO tech is aimed towards pesticides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Trabisnikof already said it as well as I could have, I was not at all referring to organic versus GMO crops but thanks for the casual dismissal of something I never said. You provided a defense of Green Party positions of GMOs. Green Parties also tend to support Organic crops as a replacement for GMO crops. I apologize for attributing their beliefs to you, but it is not that far of a logical leap to make given the context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:The anti-GMO crowd often seems to conflate Monsanto and GMO. I try and nuance their view by pointing out Monstanto, along with most of big agri, is pretty terrible. That doesn't then mean that the process of creating GMOs is terrible, as it can do cool and good things like extend the climate that crops can be grown in so resource poor areas can use more growing area, or add in nutrients to a crop that otherwise doesn't have it so key dietary needs can be addressed in the developing world. Not all GMO tech is aimed towards pesticides. Or bio-sequestration will likely need GMOs to be effective enough by the time we get our act together. Although a lot of people think we still shouldn't be talking about geoengineering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You provided a defense of Green Party positions of GMOs. Green Parties also tend to support Organic crops as a replacement for GMO crops. I apologize for attributing their beliefs to you, but it is not that far of a logical leap to make given the context. I attempted to head that off with the qualifying statement at the end, but apparently I didn't phrase it emphatically enough. I essentially agree with Diebold's position, just pointing out poor applications that lend an air of legitimacy to the anti-GMO crowd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Do I give up my nice things like car, phone, heat for climate changes to end? Don't want to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:The anti-GMO crowd often seems to conflate Monsanto and GMO. I try and nuance their view by pointing out Monstanto, along with most of big agri, is pretty terrible. That doesn't then mean that the process of creating GMOs is terrible, as it can do cool and good things like extend the climate that crops can be grown in so resource poor areas can use more growing area, or add in nutrients to a crop that otherwise doesn't have it so key dietary needs can be addressed in the developing world. Not all GMO tech is aimed towards pesticides. I would say Monsanto and GMOs are inseparable at this point. I know GMOs could be used for good, but they're currently being used for bad and we need to address that first, even if it means hampering GMOs for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Shayu posted:Do I give up my nice things like car, phone, heat for climate changes to end? Don't want to do that. That point is contested. I don't think many people think you'll lose necessities like heating but your car is up for debate. Phones have very small carbon footprints if I know my pollution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:28
|
|
