|
Radbot posted:Don't blame Greenpeace for using modern marketing tactics. I do blame them for having a massive anti nuclear hate boner to the point where it's actively counterproductive to climate change mitigation.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
blowfish posted:I do blame them for having a massive anti nuclear hate boner to the point where it's actively counterproductive to climate change mitigation. You're in luck! Very few people actually grant Greenpeace any credibility. Point your blame at CNN's endless coverage of Fukushima, and other MSM coverage of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island before that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Prisoner's dilemma doesn't apply to a game with as many variables as climate change, for one. For another, think of the accelerating increase of power demand. As more people and nations move toward a more western lifestyle its unreasonable to tell them "no you can't live like us, its bad for the environment." You can try to lower demand by changing your own lifestyle, which actually won't affect anything because you're buying into already produced products (making you the end-user). The example I used is a petrochemical plant and for good reason. Even if 100,000 people decreased their demand for fuel produced by the plant, in another place people want that resource and will buy it. Not to mention a petrochemical plant isn't only producing fuel. Its producing solvents, reagents and further down the line plastics. All of which are in increasing demand by chemical companies. The products made by those companies are bought by individuals, other companies and farmers en masse. Attempting to control demand as the end user of a product is like laying in front of the ocean to stem the tide. In the case of climate change, its easier to meet increasing power demands with nuclear power and eventually renewables than it is to control the economic demands of seven billion people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
I am currently attending a climate conference at my campus with Angus King, and I was wondering what sort of good questions could I ask?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I am currently attending a climate conference at my campus with Angus King, and I was wondering what sort of good questions could I ask? Ask if anyone has calculated the lost opportunity cost of the halt in nuclear plant construction for the past 30 years vis a vis carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Electric public transit with a nuclear grid and social programs to mitigate the reasons people hate public transit like homeless people sleeping, pissing, and dying in it seems like a doable future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Should I ask for Angus King's opinion on Naomi Klein's arguments?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Should I ask for Angus King's opinion on Naomi Klein's arguments? Absolutely not!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Absolutely not!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Because then you wouldn't ask the question *I* want you to ask!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Despite our universal agreement that: I think most of them subconsciously understand that no personal initiative is going to change the situation anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Dr. Furious posted:How do you get to this point when people that push the boundaries by criticizing the choices individual people make are shamed as smug assholes, even by people that are aware of the stakes of the overall problem of climate change? It's uncomfortable to think of ourselves as selfish, but it's a valid ethical argument, even if the person making it is being a hypocrite compared to some other hypothetical individual whose lifestyle generates lower emissions. Climate change is a collective prisoner's dilemma. How can we move to a position where betraying your species becomes more socially unacceptable if the only position from which someone can make a valid criticism of others is some ideal unobtainable moral high ground? You don't. At least if you factor in the entire world outside of the developed nations. It will have to happen the same way cultural and moral-philosophical change happens, gradually and slowly. Which I believe it is among younger people. And not to be dismissive, but that's why this alone won't solve anything; attitudes are changing too slowly in response to a problem that has utterly glacial speed and momentum. As I've said before, I'm more of a cynic than an optimist when it comes to this, but I honestly think that changing attitudes about climate change, individual effort and all that is very deeply tied in to political beliefs and opinions - solidarity, social responsibility and egalitarian/socialist economics has got to accompany this awareness of environmental issues. We need to change all of it. We need a paradigm shift, and a big one. Luckily, this isn't impossible at least from a historical point of view. But there needs to be a catalyst, and what that might be I don't know. Potential BFF posted:Electric public transit with a nuclear grid and social programs to mitigate the reasons people hate public transit like homeless people sleeping, pissing, and dying in it seems like a doable future. Yeah. That would actually solve a great deal of the emissions issue, especially combined with increasing electrification of industry based on a low emission grid and probably a massive reforestation program coupled with agricultural and aquacultural reform. Also huge would be an alternative to air travel, and a significant decrease in air traffic. And low-emissions logistics. E: A great example of a social policy that would also be huge for the environment both local and global (at least for most of Europe) would be free public transport (bus, tram) in all cities. In the long run it would probably save money even if the up-front cost of the system would be taxpayer funded, it just wouldn't be as visible. But it would be extremely effective in terms of moving the biggest amount of people with the least amount of emissions, and reduce traffic (and fuel consumption) dramatically. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
I didn't manage to ask Angus King anything.  He did say though that republicans were beginning to shift their approach towards acknowledging the existence of climate change, that a global emissions tax is realistically impossible, and other things similar to Naomi Klein's views on capitalism vs climate change. No mention of nuclear anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Despite our universal agreement that: At least you're being honest, unlike many other people in the thread. Quick, significant reductions in carbon emissions are impossible unless we more or less ruin our economies and accept significantly reduced standards of living, which isn't going to happen as it's not politically acceptable. The vast majority of the population will just not tolerate living like you, so we will just have to adapt to temperature increases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Marmot, you are writing in a way that comes off intentionally combative and makes you sound like an rear end. You are also right. There are some mental gymnastics needed to see personal purchasing habits as insignificant. Looking toward supply and demand and claiming, "look, if I don't buy airfare, someone else will and nothing will change" is why our planet is going to loving kill billions of people. Mind you, not the wealthy nations, but the poor. How you reduce air travel is not the point of this post. That's a policy thing. This is about recognising that climate change is an issue with small decisions summed to N = population. You are a consumer. You are part of N.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Obligatory "reduce N: kill most humans" post here. Edit: poo poo, actually, in a sense that's what warming is getting ready to do to us regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:We need to change all of it. We need a paradigm shift, and a big one. Luckily, this isn't impossible at least from a historical point of view. But there needs to be a catalyst, and what that might be I don't know. That catalyst, like most catalysts that have spurred change, will probably involve a lot of death and suffering. Not just any death and suffering mind you -- but the type of death and suffering that encompasses all economic classes. I mean, it took the deaths of many high-profile rich people (and hundreds of not-rich-people) on the world's biggest ocean liner for us to collectively decide that hey, maybe having lifeboats for everybody on board would be a good idea. I expect that we will have a similar catalyzing event for climate change in the (near-ish) future. That is, a singular rapid-onset disaster that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the climate is getting really loving weird, and, simultaneously, causes a lot of casualties indiscriminate of class or status. An event that people, decades in the future, will point to as the moment when humanity 'woke up' to the problem. Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, I think, were harbingers of such an event, but neither of them were as catalyzing for climate change policy as the Titanic was for maritime safety. Like I said, it would have to be a sudden onset event. Perhaps an incredibly powerful storm that forms so suddenly that it prevents evacuation. In any case, humanity only seems to collectively change course once something really, really dramatic and intolerable occurs to rich people. sitchensis fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
The problem is, climate doesn't really work like that. A climate suitable for producing one catalyzing megadisaster (or perfect storm of disasters) is suitable for producing multiple megadisasters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:The changing parameter is the reduction of flying - if individuals fly less, then usage cannot increase. e: this derail over an offhand comment about hoping to dive the coral reefs is so loving stupid. The whole point of that comment was that we've hosed up badly enough that the OP won't even be able to do that in a few years. The only emissions created as a result of that comment will be from your moronic meltdown. Dubstep Jesus fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Apr 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Obligatory "reduce N: kill most humans" post here. I honestly expect a moderate to heavy blip from a regional nuclear conflict somewhere as well with the source of the conflict arising out of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
By somewhere do you mean Kashmir?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:Prisoner's dilemma doesn't apply to a game with as many variables as climate change, for one. For another, think of the accelerating increase of power demand. As more people and nations move toward a more western lifestyle its unreasonable to tell them "no you can't live like us, its bad for the environment." All good points. Part of the problem is that any person living in the first world is part of the total problem. It reminds me of that news story where all of those people in Seattle paddled their plastic kayaks out to protest that Exxon rig that was headed to the arctic sea. I was working in oil and gas at the time and a bunch of my coworkers were all "haha look at those hypocrites in their petrochemical derived leisure boats protesting oil production." And while that is a lovely argument generally and I don't condone it as it's intellectual dishonest, the story does underscore a very real disconnect between the lifestyle of even the most gaia loving firstworlder and the very macro environmental issues affecting the planet. Sure you could find a fallen tree, sand and carve it down into a canoe, seal it entirely only with tree sap or whatever and have a canoe to enjoy the pure splendor of Puget Sound. But that bespoke canoe will be orders of magnitudes more expensive and way less functional than the plastic one available for $200 at REI or whatever. So much of the environmental movement is problematic because it seems to revolve mostly around picking pet projects of things that they hate and yelling loudly. The best answers to GW will be to find the cheapest and best way to eliminate or negate as much of the net problem as possible counting only net inputs and outputs. Unfortunately often times that means choosing the lesser of two evils or living with one less bad thing until we can feasibly get on to the next less bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Assholes that sit around demanding ideological consistency and connected belief to action mappings are insufferable and do more to hurt group cohesion and collective planning work than anyone else. It's all no true scotsman bullshit. At the individual level all small voluntary decisions to cut emissions should be congratulated and applauded and supported, but everyone knows the true work is on the policy and market regulation side. This is like the drought in California. Most of the discussion surrounds lawns and showheads when 80% of water usage is industrial and only 20% is residential. This means that a 50% reduction in usage on the residential side is equal to a 10% reduction on the industrial side. If all residential users up and died there'd still be a water shortage. Our discussions are not focused on productive areas of leverage for change. So yeah, loving get on a plane and go on a vacation. You're not the problem, but feel free to pitch in with small stuff anyhow because every little bit helps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Also to note, the idea of climate change and dealing with it mentally can cause an incredible amount of stress; while I was critical of Placid Marmots initial comment I know I myself have been at that point as far as dealing with what it means, what i can reasonably expect, and dealing with personal responsibility in the face of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:By somewhere do you mean Kashmir? If we were making bets then that's what I would put my money on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Marmot, you are writing in a way that comes off intentionally combative and makes you sound like an rear end. This is the "What can be done" thread, whose OP states that we should "point the new discussion more towards solutions and action", yet the vocal concensus seems to be that we should consume as much as we feel like because it doesn't matter - someone else will deal with it, that reduced consumption does not result in reduced production, and that buying a product that already exists has no environmental impact as it has already been manufactured. Influencing individuals to reduce their consumption, at least of the worst sources of pollution, must be a major part of the solution, as no government is ever going to ban or even significantly restrict flying, animal products, driving [outside of anti-smog measures], or consumption of other high carbon intensity products, which make up the bulk of non-essential sources of CO2e. Saying "don't worry, it's not your responsibility" is idiotic - consumers are the drivers of climate change. Given that this is probably the thread with the highest proportion of ACC believers in the forums, but that these people appear not to actually want to change their own damaging behavior, I propose that we change the thread title to: "Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed" Oh... wait... Dubstep Jesus posted:e: this derail over an offhand comment about hoping to dive the coral reefs is so loving stupid. The whole point of that comment was that we've hosed up badly enough that the OP won't even be able to do that in a few years. The only emissions created as a result of that comment will be from your moronic meltdown. This "offhand comment about hoping to dive the coral reefs" is specifically prohibited in the OP. Had it been a less thoughtless, selfish and hypocritical comment, I would not have responded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:Also that plane is flying with or without a given person on it. Flying will result in an increase in suffering in the future. Whether or not you're comfortable with that is a choice for each person to make similar to choices made for pretty much all 1st world consumer choices (though those are generally dealing with past suffering instead of future). It's also similar to choosing to continue to live at 1st world standards; best individual choice is almost always going to be suicide (or slaughter). This is why having a moral system that values the infinitesimal future suffering over current happiness is hosed up (well, one reason). I don't fly for vacations (and I have sterilized myself) but that's a personal choice and not for everyone. And I could be convinced to fly for a variety of reasons since that choice isn't particularly meaningful and I can think of several ways it would be a net positive. tl;dr flying don't matter much
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Also to note, the idea of climate change and dealing with it mentally can cause an incredible amount of stress; while I was critical of Placid Marmots initial comment I know I myself have been at that point as far as dealing with what it means, what i can reasonably expect, and dealing with personal responsibility in the face of it. lol If climate change is making you freak out and become (more) mentally ill then you have far more serious problems
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:lol You weren't stressed upon initially learning about climate change? Pretty big gap between that and mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:You weren't stressed upon initially learning about climate change? Pretty big gap between that and mental illness. Mentally, for me, it feels like a very dull, intermittent, low-grade anxiety that infrequently pops up every now and then. Usually when I encounter an article about new monthly temp records being broken or coral reefs being bleached. Or when someone mentions offhand about how unseasonably warm the winter has been. It also sometimes derives from my own experience. For example, the disconnect I felt between my "expectations" for a winter season that are in line with what I have experienced over the course of my lifetime, and the "reality" of something like last winter, where I was outside in a t-shirt in February when I should have been bundled up and trudging through snow drifts. It can be unsettling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Assholes that sit around demanding ideological consistency and connected belief to action mappings are insufferable and do more to hurt group cohesion and collective planning work than anyone else. It's all no true scotsman bullshit. I'd go so far as to say that it's the single thing keeping what passes for the American progressive movement from getting too much done. It doesn't matter that this person agrees with you about 75% or 80% or 99% of the issues you could hope to name; there's a point of disagreement somewhere and that makes that person the enemy. (It's on my mind this morning because, reading about Patton Oswalt's wife's death, most of the reactions you stumble across are simple condolences. Every so often on social media, some Bernie Sanders supporter is mad as hell, and isn't letting a little thing like this stop them from going off on a rant.) Placid Marmot posted:Given that this is probably the thread with the highest proportion of ACC believers in the forums, but that these people appear not to actually want to change their own damaging behavior, I propose that we change the thread title to: Don't be a confrontational prick. Nobody actually disagrees with you, but you come off like you're out to score rhetorical points in an imaginary game, and it's poisonous to actual discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:You weren't stressed upon initially learning about climate change? Pretty big gap between that and mental illness. Freaking out and berating some guy about his vacation plans isn't really a sign of stability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:I'd go so far as to say that it's the single thing keeping what passes for the American progressive movement from getting too much done. See also: (armchair) leftist circular firing squad
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Freaking out and berating some guy about his vacation plans isn't really a sign of stability. I'll agree to that 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Mentally, for me, it feels like a very dull, intermittent, low-grade anxiety that infrequently pops up every now and then. Usually when I encounter an article about new monthly temp records being broken or coral reefs being bleached. Or when someone mentions offhand about how unseasonably warm the winter has been. I think anymore my anxiety i might get is pretty similar. The coral reef news was probably the most recent kicker as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Why get poo poo done with whoever also thinks that particular poo poo needs to get done when you could instead call each other out for being immoral bastards 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Being anxious about a worldwide phenomenon driven by billions of lives over which you have no control, is a problem. One day things might go to poo poo for you, if you have kids they're probably going to die horribly, but this is the case for the vast majority of the human race right now and always has been. The only difference when it comes to climate change is that it will drag the western world back into suffering it hasn't known for generations and has forgotten how to deal with. You're anxious because your mind knows one day you or your children might be living like the Sudanese do now, today, and that is uncomfortable. poo poo sucks, eh? What are you gonna do about it? Sit there and tremble and let it ruin the good times while they last? Right now you're one of the luckiest humans who has ever lived, since this species was formed. Do something with your loving lives. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Rime posted:Being anxious about a worldwide phenomenon driven by billions of lives over which you have no control, is a problem. One day things might go to poo poo for you, if you have kids they're probably going to die horribly, but this is the case for the vast majority of the human race right now and always has been. Could you expand on this
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
And that leads to part of a different problem: the degree of hyperbole assigned to the situation. Living like a war orphan isn't in the cards for much of the Western world, barring something along the lines of nuclear winter. Assuming we remain paralyzed, and that various technologies remain precisely the same as they are now (everybody working on cloned meat just fucks off home for some reason), it would almost certainly mean civil unrest, and possibly even civil war. As early as the '90s, I remember a couple of futurists and science fiction writers (specifically Robert Anton Wilson) talking about the potential for conflict between California, Nevada, and several neighboring states over water rights. What climate change does mean is the end of certain creature comforts that many affluent Westerners have grown to take for granted. Your children may have to be vegetarians or vegans; they may be reliant on mass transit, without the option for their own independent transport; they may live in smaller spaces, and/or be forced into urban enclaves. It's not the end of the world, but it may very well be the end of what we currently know as comfort. It will certainly be replaced by something, and you can see the beginnings of that in the emerging field of "boomers explain milennials to other boomers" lifestyle thinkpieces; old systems wither in the face of disinterest, and new systems are adopted in their wake. The challenge of climate change, to my mind, isn't that it's an unstoppable apocalyptic force, but that it's a massive, world-changing event from outside the current culture. It's an imminent demand to have less, which isn't the same as being less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Banana Man posted:Could you expand on this If you were born and/or are alive today in the US, Western Europe, and smatterings of Asia, Africa, or South America, you probably have a standard of living higher than the vast majority of humanity that ever lived prior to ~1950 could even conceive of. You probably have a quality of life better than what 2/3rds of people alive TODAY will ever experience or know. Even though your influence on government or society might be minute, you still have the access and the opportunity to shift thinking or policy in a way that can eventually support a societal shift towards more sustainable practices of consumption and living. Or you can quibble on the internet about who has the better intentions and the more environmentally friendly carbon footprint among first worlders, while worrying yourself into an unstable mental state over minutiae and hypotheticals. Pick one. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Apr 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 21:41
|
|
