|
Forever_Peace posted:Here's a really fantastic explainer out today on the story behind the Washington State carbon tax proposal that is going to be on the ballot next month. This is really interesting, thanks for posting it. A few thoughts: -Washington state's insane funding is an underlying problem here. If I lived in a state funded entirely by spending taxes I'd definitely want carbon revenue to go towards actual spending. In states with actual income taxes, a revenue neutral carbon tax could be tolerated. -the split between the two groups is ugly, and part of it seems personality driven. The Alliance deserves some blame for moving too slowly and allowing CarbonWA to get a ballot question in, but building a broad political consensus takes time. I prefer the Alliance's approach but they got their lunch eaten. -Bauman comes off as a technocrat. Recent polling shows trying to get Republicans on board a climate change mitigation proposal is foolish -I'd probably vote for the measure if I lived in WA, but it's definitely not ideal. -The Alliance's plan to put a carbon tax ballot question on an off-year election is super not ideal.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:As far as I know the only event that actually reduces human-based GHG emissions on the planet are global financial crises. Unfortunately that makes taking the carbon out of the atmosphere that much more difficult. Green energy has at least reduced it compared to what it would have been otherwise, right? Which is admittedly not saying much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good list of charities and organisations working against climate change? I live in Northern Ireland currently and have no idea who to even turn to or try to support. What are the best resources around for learning how to fight this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Green energy has at least reduced it compared to what it would have been otherwise, right? I mean, maybe?  Does it matter is the question at this point, Green energy has been around for a while and global ghg emissions (the only thing that really matters) haven't really showed a noticeable effect. Captain Fargle posted:Does anyone have a good list of charities and organisations working against climate change? I live in Northern Ireland currently and have no idea who to even turn to or try to support. Fight what? The fact that the carbon we emitted into the atmosphere 20 years ago is going to heat the planet is going to be tough to fight. I hope you have a local time travel society. Best you'll find out there are a bunch of resources for learning how to live a more ecologically minded lifestyle. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:BattleMoose coming into the thread arguing for optimism, proposing a wild target as a real possibility and reason to have hope, and then being unable to even explain how it would result in a situation that wasnt hosed up or really do anything at all but by us more time before the inevitable collapse is probablu the single most depressing and demoralizing thing I have read in this thread of depressing and demoralizing things. You can't typically convince the clinically depressed using logic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
It does take a special kind of sad brainz to want to commit suicide because of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You can't typically convince the clinically depressed using logic. And the relevance that has to anything I said is...?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Does anyone have a good list of charities and organisations working against climate change? I live in Northern Ireland currently and have no idea who to even turn to or try to support. Fantastic question! 350.org is a bit of a hub for younger organizers. I'm more familiar with US groups, but 350 has a list of international partners on their website that should help you find groups in Northern Ireland! Please do share what you find. =)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:And the relevance that has to anything I said is...? Many occupants of this thread fall under that definition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Many occupants of this thread fall under that definition. Son, as soon as you accept that we can't save the Earth the sooner you will move past seeing it as an unwinnable fight as "depressing" or "hopeless". There's lots of things our global civilization can't accomplish, no shame in admitting it once in awhile. If it's depressing to hear me say you should stop caring about the planet and start worrying about your local community so be it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Fantastic question! Thank you! So far one of the things I've found is the following website: http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/ Seems to be an excellent source of information on carbon sequestration efforts and techniques. I'd encourage everyone to read through it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Son, as soon as you accept that we can't save the Earth the sooner you will move past seeing it as an unwinnable fight as "depressing" or "hopeless". There's lots of things our global civilization can't accomplish, no shame in admitting it once in awhile. If it's depressing to hear me say you should stop caring about the planet and start worrying about your local community so be it. Oh shut up you miserable nihilist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:If it's depressing to hear me say you should stop caring about the planet and start worrying about your local community so be it. Oh no that's not depression, that tends towards nationalism and fascism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Does anyone have a good list of charities and organisations working against climate change? I live in Northern Ireland currently and have no idea who to even turn to or try to support. Citizen's Climate Lobby is pretty good, a dedicated lobbying group proposing a simple carbon tax. It's US-centric and would be on the technocratic/single-issue side of things, but they do have international chapters. When I was more involved my belief was that a simple revenue-neutral carbon tax was the only thing likely to get through congress. I'm not sure if this is still the best approach, but it's something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Thank you! lol http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/initiatives-overview/ quote:TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DIRECT AIR CAPTURE It looks like that website is more about having a place for rich people to donate to the right organizations than it is about CCS in any way other than "it sounds cool". Everything that isn't philanthropy has "more information coming soon" listed after it and no detail. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/what-is-carbon-removal/ http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/research-and-links/ Sorry that all this stuff isn't informative enough for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/what-is-carbon-removal/ Did you actually read the first article? It's the definition of wishful thinking with no substance to back it up. Like I'm really over the article that just throws up a few charts and says "if we don't do this we're screwed" well, what is it you want to do? Here's your Q&A from the center for carbon removal: quote:What are the largest challenges facing the carbon removal field? You really don't need an entire website to say that. Also I glanced through the list of links, are any of those actually worth clicking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Did you actually read the first article? It's the definition of wishful thinking with no substance to back it up. Do you deliberately try to be this stupid? Oh gee I wonder what is the CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL wants to do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Do you deliberately try to be this stupid? quote:Seems to be an excellent source of information on carbon sequestration efforts and techniques. But it has no information on carbon sequestration efforts or techniques, it's just a list of links and a generic "here's what we need to do to keep warming below 2C" that will never happen images lifted from the latest IPCC report. Images like these have no place in a scientific discussion of climate change. 
NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:But it has no information on carbon sequestration efforts or techniques, it's just a list of links and a generic "here's what we need to do to keep warming below 2C" that will never happen images lifted from the latest IPCC report. So you're mad that I shared a link that I thought was extremely helpful and it only turned out to be moderately helpful instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Or, you know, someone with a different value set than you, whatever yours is that leads you to that conclusion. All I can say is I'm very glad I don't subscribe to a value set that willingly produces children that wouldn't otherwise exist just to put them in bunkers. Also it sounds like I'm the only one who couldn't give less of a gently caress whether there's going to be some miserable human existence left on Earth when the rest of our ecosystem is dead and we don't have the resources to escape to space. The question isn't "why not do something, if it could avoid worse catastrophe?" it is "if what i'm doing to survive this car accident is equivalent to frantically duct taping bubble wrap around my head before we crash, maybe my energy would be better spent enjoying time outside than getting pepper sprayed at a hippy rally" call to action fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
call to action posted:All I can say is I'm very glad I don't subscribe to a value set that willingly produces children that wouldn't otherwise exist just to put them in bunkers. Good, more space in the bunker for me and my kin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Good, more space in the bunker for me and my kin. It's a strange kind of sadism to want your children to suffer vs. not suffer. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
you can turn children into livestock if you get hungry
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
call to action posted:It's a strange kind of sadism to want your children to suffer vs. not suffer. Good luck with that. Just because your bunker would suck doesn't mean mine won't be awesome. My bunker will have board games and table tennis! Plus, if the kids never tasted fruits how will they miss them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Making a conscious effort to avoid having children you feel you won't be able to provide for is a perfectly reasonable decision. The idea that you won't be able to provide for them because we're all going to be living in bunkers on New Venus is blatantly absurd though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Making a conscious effort to avoid having children you feel you won't be able to provide for is a perfectly reasonable decision. The idea that you won't be able to provide for them because we're all going to be living in bunkers on New Venus is blatantly absurd though. Yeah, I never said anything about that being likely. It was a comment about the folks that are doomsayers and yet are still opting to have kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
call to action posted:Yeah, I never said anything about that being likely. It was a comment about the folks that are doomsayers and yet are still opting to have kids. Yeah, I was having the same reaction up thread a bit, but I didn't bother posting anything. Not having kids is the only reasonable, ethical thing to do if you honestly believe that we're going to be living in a post-apocalyptic hellscape. Believing that we're going to be living in a post-apocalyptic hellscape because of climate change is not reasonable, though. Having kids even if you're pretty sure that their lives won't be as good as yours isn't all that selfish, though, given that living in a first world nation is pretty great right now. The next generation is still going to have things pretty great, even if they're much poorer than we are and living in a less stable world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
call to action posted:Yeah, I never said anything about that being likely. It was a comment about the folks that are doomsayers and yet are still opting to have kids. To be honest the only people here who think we are doomed are the people calling for voluntary depopulation. Saying human existence is the problem is such a depressing position it's hard to take seriously. Beyond that, the idea that life is only worth living if we can maintain our current standard of living is a joke. Life is relative, our children will be just fine, hopefully they will be able to face reality without viewing it as the apocalypse as many of you do. The idea that collective action will fail to save the planet from 4C+ of warming does not mean we are doomed to a post-apocalyptic hellhole. It just means the problems we have to solve are different now than they were 20 years ago. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can move towards actually having something to be hopeful about. Have you ever considered that you all are projecting your own view of the consequences of my views on to me? I have never said we're headed to a post-apocalyptic primitivist state. In fact I explicitly said I don't even think that's possible given where we are today. But the idea that coastal cities are going to experience mass emigration, we're going to lose a majority of the arable land we use for agriculture, extreme weather events are going to continue to get worse, these are parts of the new reality that we officially entering into as physical limitations take over our ability to use globally coordinated political efforts to solve the issue. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:To be honest the only people here who think we are doomed are the people calling for voluntary depopulation. Saying human existence is the problem is such a depressing position it's hard to take seriously. I don't think anyone is blaming human existence; it's industrialization that brought us here, and it's industrialization that we will inevitably have to work to undo over the coming centuries. It doesn't matter how depressing we find it, this whole situation is one that must be taken seriously
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I don't think anyone is blaming human existence; it's industrialization that brought us here, and it's industrialization that we will inevitably have to work to undo over the coming centuries. I guess, I see people calling for less children as blaming human existence. Reducing ourselves down to "well the average human uses X carbon a year so if you don't have a child you're preventing that" is such bullshit I can't even take it seriously as an argument, and yet it's being posted by multiple people in this thread, usually couched with terms about bunkers and rape that have more place in a Tom clancy novel than a discussion of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
call to action posted:It's a strange kind of sadism to want your children to suffer vs. not suffer. Good luck with that. If you're not okay with the idea of your children suffering and dying, there's not really any good point in human history to have children, so thank god for the sadists that made our species possible I guess? The Groper posted:I don't think anyone is blaming human existence; it's industrialization that brought us here, and it's industrialization that we will inevitably have to work to undo over the coming centuries. It doesn't matter how depressing we find it, this whole situation is one that must be taken seriously It's certainly felt like that, from some people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you're not okay with the idea of your children suffering and dying, there's not really any good point in human history to have children, so thank god for the sadists that made our species possible I guess? There's a pretty huge portion of the western world that feels life without ipods, starbucks and the ability to fly to san fransisco for a weekend wouldn't be living and it's a massive problem when it comes to enacting any real change w/r/t our overall interactions with the environment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I guess, I see people calling for less children as blaming human existence. Reducing ourselves down to "well the average human uses X carbon a year so if you don't have a child you're preventing that" is such bullshit I can't even take it seriously as an argument, and yet it's being posted by multiple people in this thread, usually couched with terms about bunkers and rape that have more place in a Tom clancy novel than a discussion of climate change. Why does your emotional response to a potential strategy invalidate it entirely? Im surrounded every day by people who would flip a poo poo if you took away their specifically gas-powered car, it doesn't mean an all-electric vehicle push can't be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Why does your emotional response to a potential strategy invalidate it entirely? Im surrounded every day by people who would flip a poo poo if you took away their specifically gas-powered car, it doesn't mean an all-electric vehicle push can't be taken seriously. It's not based on my emotional response, it's based on the logical conclusion of that strategy. An all-electric vehicle push is a good thing and should be taken seriously. A push towards depopulation is a bad thing. Taking it seriously is the least of our problems. If you can't work through the logical conclusion of the western world deciding that population control is an acceptable method to deal with Climate Change you are more naive than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
The part I don't understand is why so many people think that just because we made it 70 years or so without a massive war between multiple aggressive nations erupting and costing the lives of millions of people, that means that it will never happen again. Sure, without such a war happening there's no reason that the people of the first world nations of the future will live in a world not worth existing in, but I don't see much in the way of convincing evidence that world peace, such as it is, can survive the effects of catastrophic climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Why does your emotional response to a potential strategy invalidate it entirely? Well, one, it's not a strategy, more of an end goal. Two, it's not really "potential" since it won't happen. Three, even if it did, even if absolutely no on had any more children starting right now, it wouldn't be enough to knock us off track for major warming. Four, it sort of results in the extinction of the species, or at least of every member of it with an ounce of climate consciousness who signs on, which uh... if you're okay with the first one why do you care about climate change at all, and the second one does not bode well for the long term, when you think about it. Finally, where did he say anything about it being invalidated by his emotional response? Where did he even mention an emotional response?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
I mean, human existence is the problem, though. It's called anthropogenic climate change for a reason. Not saying that depopulation is the answer, but c'mon, you and your children bear some of the responsibility for creating a changing climate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The part I don't understand is why so many people think that just because we made it a hundred years or so without a massive war between multiple aggressive nations erupting and costing the lives of millions of people, that means that it will never happen again. Sure, without such a war happening there's no reason that the people of the first world nations of the future will live in a world not worth existing in, but I don't see much in the way of convincing evidence that world peace, such as it is, can survive the effects of catastrophic climate change. The minute you start disenfranchising people from society you begin the process of creating terrorists. We already have huge swathes of the population who are literally ready and waiting for the US government to deteriorate to the point where they can take over "their land". The types of authoritarian regimes required to actually do anything meaningful as far as responding to climate change would be incapable of winning an election in the United States as it stands. I think the US has way more risk of fragmentation and civil war than it does threat from overseas powers, but I could be wrong on that one as well. Ultimately a bunch of nationstates with nukes collapsing is not going to be good for security. call to action posted:I mean, human existence is the problem, though. It's called anthropogenic climate change for a reason. The answer is to understand that responsibility and take action because of it. Not kill yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
call to action posted:I mean, human existence is the problem, though. It's called anthropogenic climate change for a reason. "The problem is a problem because of the existence of humans" is a very different statement than "human existence is the problem". After all, it would be just as much of a problem, and just as much something we urgently needed to resolve, if humans weren't the source. But yeah, you've got your nihilistic hedonism or whatever, you do you, but most people have actual values that extent a bit beyond "enjoy the ride while we crash and burn".
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:20
|
|