|
Trabisnikof posted:Let's name things that would: Public Transportation increases, especially rail. peter banana posted:nvm: shockingly, the conversation about timidly suggesting reduction or elimination of animal product consumption as *A* possible climate change solution went to poo poo. Look, you are not wrong. The studies are correct. But to implement them realistically in a timeframe to make an impact within a decade are the issue. Veganism CAN reduce our impact, and I didn't mean to imply it couldn't help. But promoting it as the end all solution is the issue. Its a component. Reducing Ag emissions IS an essential step to solving this. But I doubt you are going to convince even half of American to ditch dairy and meat to do it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jan 3, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
peter banana posted:nvm: shockingly, the conversation about timidly suggesting reduction or elimination of animal product consumption as *A* possible climate change solution went to poo poo. every bacon loving american every beefy boy and girl should get dragged down to the where real swine is grown for the breakfast table and look in the eyes of every cow that ever got a nervous feeling looking at the killing floor before it got bolted but seriously don't go near anywhere pigs are grown commercially
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
It's axiomatic at this point that raising the idea of reducing animal consumption in D&D inevitably draws out goons otherwise environmentally conscious into defending meat consumption. There's no defence of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:but seriously don't go near anywhere pigs are grown commercially At least not without proper facial protection. Those poo poo-lagoon spores will wreck your insides right up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm for both. But let's not pretend that his mass plan that he's pushing to make everyone vegan (and I'm assuming without GMOs and Protein considering the guy he is citing) is insane. Come on man, you're being totally unfair. peter banana has never pushed any plan to make everyone vegan, rather he has argued we have a personal responsibility to reduce the carbon intensity of our diet, and advanced what's actually a fairly modest plan to re balance agricultural subsidies. This is not insane, even if you disagree it. I think it is immentantly reasonable, and desirable, if perhaps not that likely to occur in the near future, but certainly worth fighting for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Public Transportation increases, especially rail. I'm wondering where could we get a system built and see at least 10% switching to rail, voluntarily within 10 years? Big metros would take too long to build, as would new HSR for replacing planes. Maybe by attacking all the medium sized cities where park-and-ride centered trains with 1-2 lines could cover them and be built in time? poo poo, I don't even think the Californian HSR will be done by then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm wondering where could we get a system built and see at least 10% switching to rail, voluntarily within 10 years? Big metros would take too long to build, as would new HSR for replacing planes. Maybe by attacking all the medium sized cities where park-and-ride centered trains with 1-2 lines could cover them and be built in time? True, its very idealist, but overall its going to have to be part of the solution in the long run. Squalid posted:Come on man, you're being totally unfair. peter banana has never pushed any plan to make everyone vegan, rather he has argued we have a personal responsibility to reduce the carbon intensity of our diet, and advanced what's actually a fairly modest plan to re balance agricultural subsidies. This is not insane, even if you disagree it. I think it is immentantly reasonable, and desirable, if perhaps not that likely to occur in the near future, but certainly worth fighting for. True, and I admitted as much above, but I don't see even 50% of America going hard vegan, shunning dairy and eggs and the like within 50 years. It can and will help, but we view these sort of things as an essential staple to being American. Its gonna be a hard sell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Well I think we could start by getting environmentalists on our side and not shutting us out of every conversation with unrealistic ideological purity tests and fully formed policy proposals. I would stick to the personal choice arguments, personally, and hope that people can feel empowered by making choice in alignment with their concerns. We could probably stop diverting from the issue with using third world people as a cudgel as well. Do any major environmentist groups actually support nuclear? Most of them I've seen insist on going full renewables which is pretty much impossible which makes it hard for me to take them seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Mozi posted:While I fully support removing ridiculous subsidies and making the true costs of meat more apparent, given where we are in time versus climate change and the current political landscape, I don't think you could call that a valid plan if being valid means it has a meaningful chance of success. By this standard there are no valid plans to address climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Do any major environmentist groups actually support nuclear? Most of them I've seen insist on going full renewables which is pretty much impossible which makes it hard for me to take them seriously. There is a couple that have started lately, but they are mostly low key.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Do any major environmentist groups actually support nuclear? Most of them I've seen insist on going full renewables which is pretty much impossible which makes it hard for me to take them seriously. They made their own called EFN, Environmentalist for Nuclear Power, probably because they kept getting kicked out of the other ones, but honestly I hear you. There's almost no defeat big environmentalist groups can't snatch from the jaws of victory and we're all going to have to live with their gently caress ups which have destroyed their credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I mean, someone asked for clarity about something I had actually experienced and I described it? Like, what I described literally happens to me? All the time? The fact that anyone is suggesting that I think veganism should be "enforced" in any way is already starting the "talking past each other." You know I'm kindof sorry for dogpiling you with everyone else, I probably agree with you more than I do posters like CommieGIR and Mozi. Its just that you managed to rustle my jimmies with your post about combative meat eaters ruining the discussion, because by starting the conversation that way you were guaranteeing that someone would feel personally attacked and hence the conversation immediately go to poo poo. I'm a serial on-again off-again vegetarian and the carbon intensity of my diet is absolutely one of the reasons I try and minimize meat consumption, even if I'm not strict. I just wish everyone could discuss these issues with clear heads on both sides. Convincing Americans to eat less meat is easy: make it more expensive and provide affordable alternatives, especially to groups at risk of nutritional deficits like children and the elderly. I think American OUGHT do this, although I don't think it is LIKELY in the present context, but then what climate mitigation is? We must adopt a multimodal approach to mitigation and fight like hell for everything that might work. Some means won't, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting for and we might surprise ourselves in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
peter banana posted:The issue is that until you actually do adopt the personal choice, though, you'll always be able to offload the responsibility elsewhere, "I don't have make a personal decision to eat less meat and dairy because the government should be disincetivizing animal products for me!" and if governments even attempt to think about wanting to try that, people say "Why is the government deciding what I can and can't eat? What about my personal choices! " To say nothing of the industry pressure on governments. If the message you wanted to convey was "we can always continue reducing impact, don't get complacent on just enough reduction, vote with your wallets," you chose a very ineffective and combative way to do it that unnecessarily drew upon some fairly awful strawmen. So some areas in Africa that don't logicstically hook into the global food market for a variety of reasons may or may not still need to incorporate meat in their diets for now. Big deal. You let that, however, sidetrack you from your message on the largely-privileged West possibly being able to diminish carbon emissions by diminishing red meat intake. That's a weird place to let CommieGIR bait and divert you -- was the third world even an element of your original point, or do you feel that the greatest gains stand to be made by focusing on the third world's meat consumption first? [Edit - it even looks like the thread sorta wants to focus on the west, anyway, so why this friction?] Consider also using sources that don't ride the anti-GMO gravy train. Like scientifically-literate Republicans who feel their credibility is undermined by their party's position of denial, I feel that anti-GMO nonsense undermines what could otherwise be a fairly-straightforward message of "Y'all bitches eat too much meat." Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Never said I was totally against reduced meat consumption 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
"Let him bait you." Okay, how about "dont use people in the third world as a cudgel to legitimize lovely practices in the west." Also, the FAO is scientifically illiterate and anti-Gmo now? What?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
peter banana posted:They made their own called EFN, Environmentalist for Nuclear Power, probably because they kept getting kicked out of the other ones, but honestly I hear you. There's almost no defeat big environmentalist groups can't snatch from the jaws of victory and we're all going to have to live with their gently caress ups which have destroyed their credibility. I am seriously hoping we see Trump pull a "We haven't built nuclear in a bigly way since the 70s. SAD!" tweet out of his rear end one morning and we start building like crazy. CommieGIR posted:Never said I was totally against reduced meat consumption Right -- hence why it really looks like there was an asymmetric blow up. I think you're needlessly pulling out examples of "Veganism kills!" where all that was called for was reduction in Banana's first post was reduction, fyi. He even points that out: peter banana posted:This is where I make a suggestion to decrease or eliminate meat and dairy products in your diet (literally a position Arnold Schwarzenegger now holds) and animal products elsewhere in your life and get mocked because "LOL VEGANS R DUMB." To muse, Banana: "I am gonna suggest we diminish meat, someone's gonna blow up about full-bore veganism." You: <pulls out examples where total-zero meat veganism has killed people in the past in this post https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3750508&pagenumber=123&perpage=40#post467947202 > Rest of thread: "This derail is dumb" I think the bit Squalid has about people talking past each other is correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
peter banana posted:"Let him bait you." Okay, how about "dont use people in the third world as a cudgel to legitimize lovely practices in the west." Also, the FAO is scientifically illiterate and anti-Gmo now? What? I think he's talking about Mic the Vegan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Some of the sources you cite ride an anti-GMO gravy train, which in itself shouldn't and doesn't debase your arguments -- your prose does that on its own -- but at the risk of setting the thread off on another goddamn loving derail, I have about as much respect for GMO fears as those fearful of modern nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
The link in the quoted post was from the FAO. I mean, Mic cites Nature magazine in his videos, does that mean everything he says is automatically as peer reviewed as articles in that publication?. I never once brought up GMOs. Which specific sources have I posted in this thread have brought up GMOs as harmful in terms of climate? The fact that CommieGIR did as some argument against veganism is kind of telling. Potato Salad posted:
Whoa, didn't even see this. Refusing to give your baby proper nutrition is not in line with any definition of veganism. Even giving your baby formula with animal derived vitamin D is still considered vegan. JFC, what a lovely terrible example. peter banana fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Vegans are monsters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y On a more serious note, I remember when scientists first started experimenting growing muscles cells in nutrient solutions to make so called "lab grown meat". A number of vegan groups came out in strong opposition because they felt it still took advantage of animals. There are few times I've wanted to give someone the middle finger more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Whoa, didn't even see this. Refusing to give your baby proper nutrition is not in line with any definition of veganism. Even giving your baby formula with animal derived vitamin D is still considered vegan. JFC, what a lovely terrible example. Unfortunately, veganism attracts a lot of cult following.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:Vegans are monsters. That did happen because fetal cells and live placentae were still required which meant animal exploitation. But it the tide has almost entirely turned and most prominent vegan spokespeople are for lab-grown meat if it does not exploit animals in any way (which it's looking possible in the future). Mercy for Animals, the Humane Society and even everyone's favourite, PETA have come out in favour of lab-grown meat for the animal rights and climate advantages it poses. I do have concerns that stockholders won't exactly be racing to make privately owned biotech "as cheap as possible for the masses" though. But I'd love to be proven wrong. CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately, veganism attracts a lot of cult following. Counterpoint: there are lovely, harmful people in every movement. I don't feel the need to apologize for or legitimize Valerie Solanas every time I advocate feminism either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Squalid posted:By this standard there are no valid plans to address climate change. I've tried to be less obviously fatalistic here because it's depressing and not useful, but yes. Trabisnikof posted:Let's name things that would: 1. Massive decrease in CO2 emissions as a result of an overwhelming decrease in human population. Counter to constraint C but hey, what can you do. And I say this not to advocate for whatever your imagination says that would involve but to make a point that real solutions to this issue for where we are at the present moment are on an entirely different level than some sort of lifestyle choice we can make as individuals. Mozi fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
But can you see where that argument easily leads to, "Well, since nothing can be done, I am justified in doing nothing to help," and how potentially harmful thatt could be if you're wrong? I'd argue that paradigm might even be what's brought us to this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:Vegans are monsters. The guy who did the "research" about plants experiencing pain also invented the "lie detector" He is a
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
A massive social trend is a pipe dream. Convincing masses of people to give up their preferred yet affordable lifestyle is less likely than Trump admin/congress building nuclear plants to compete with fossil fuels. Even if it did happen the results would be countered by our government and industry and other countries'. Reminder: they plan to increase natural gas, coal and oil production through deregulation and withdrawing from climate accords. This will destroy a lot of land and make it unusable for the middle-future. These resources and their products will be consumed by the US and if not, will be sold to other countries. The only thing that can go wrong is having companies produce too much, increasing the world supply and decreasing price, in which case they will stockpile or lower production to squeeze more money out of the market just like OPEC does. More hydrocarbon availability is a boon to the chemical industries the world over including plastics, farming, organic synthesis- many of which will produce more pollution (but not necessarily CO2) as a result. Regardless of the economics, more CO2 is going to be produced by the US because of the availability of fossil fuels versus the alternatives and the fact that the infrastructure of the US is built around fossil fuels. Change is hard. That isn't even counting people in other countries who desire a lifestyle like those in the US and massively populated countries that are going through an industrial revolution or are about to (Chine and India, respectively) as I mentioned before. Hell, when they have to start shipping fresh water to Nevada and California, or create desalination plants for fresh water, more CO2 is going into the atmosphere. Unless tons of people migrate from those two states then the carbon footprint of many, many people is going to increase even if they all go vegan! Farmers in particular will increase their CO2 production due to the need for watering their crops in what will soon be desert. I guess I'm assuming that climate change will negatively effect the run-off from the Rockies but that seems to be the pattern for the last six years so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I am seriously hoping we see Trump pull a "We haven't built nuclear in a bigly way since the 70s. SAD!" tweet out of his rear end one morning and we start building like crazy. Gutting the DoE and NRC's regulations might get us more nuclear power plants but I wouldn't want to live near one of them
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Climate Change: What is to be Done? Apparently nothing, so no need to try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Gutting the DoE and NRC's regulations might get us more nuclear power plants but I wouldn't want to live near one of them why not
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Climate Change: What is to be Done? Apparently nothing, so no need to try. Nature will force our hand before any solid political and economic action does:
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:A massive social trend is a pipe dream. Convincing masses of people to give up their preferred yet affordable lifestyle is less likely than Trump admin/congress building nuclear plants to compete with fossil fuels. Even if it did happen the results would be countered by our government and industry and other countries'. Reminder: they plan to increase natural gas, coal and oil production through deregulation and withdrawing from climate accords. This will destroy a lot of land and make it unusable for the middle-future. I don't generally disagree with you but heavily urbanized areas tend to be way more energy efficient than suburbs and rural areas on a per capita basis. If anything vast amounts of public housing and associated services need to be built up in a manner that will prioritize energy efficiency if the federal government wants to preserve any modicum of stability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Climate Change: What is to be Done? Apparently nothing, so no need to try. While this is mostly correct it'd be nice teach people about carbon isotopes and a clean and safe way to use old nuclear waste to spit less of them down our lungs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ueDHn2HTk
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
For the record, "an article from Nature" is a really bad source. Nature's editorial review is infamously bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Can you guys like chill out and accept that as long as there is authoritarian rule in place to force people to reduce their consumption in all aspects of their daily life, it really doesn't matter what you think the best way to reduce emissions globally is? Who cares if veganism is better for the environment or not? The game is already over, you guys. The only way to make an actual difference is to blow up coal plants and any other major sources of pollution and manage to not get caught for long enough that you can create a permanent effect on the market that makes them unprofitable, and that's literally impossible. Nobody here is going to do that, myself included. There's really no reason to get this frustrated and start talking past each other and yelling about how mad you are at SA or goons or redditors or whatever, because we are not failing this fight, no matter how admirably or poorly we perform in it, we're decades too late.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Can you guys like chill out and accept that as long as there is authoritarian rule in place to force people to reduce their consumption in all aspects of their daily life, it really doesn't matter what you think the best way to reduce emissions globally is? Who cares if veganism is better for the environment or not? The game is already over, you guys. The only way to make an actual difference is to blow up coal plants and any other major sources of pollution and manage to not get caught for long enough that you can create a permanent effect on the market that makes them unprofitable, and that's literally impossible. Nobody here is going to do that, myself included. There's really no reason to get this frustrated and start talking past each other and yelling about how mad you are at SA or goons or redditors or whatever, because we are not failing this fight, no matter how admirably or poorly we perform in it, we're decades too late. Actually, if you blow up coal plants, the rather quick result would be a spike in temperatures. Our smog keeps us a bit cooler than we ought to be, given greenhouse gas levels. This is how utterly hosed we are. Speaking of, here's a lovely thing:
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Rich westerners going vegan isn't going to amount to jack poo poo when meat consumption continues to skyrocket in countries like China, India, and other developing countries. The issue with the massive increase in the standards of living across the globe is that those people then want to consume like westerners and that cancels whatever meager gains you got by increasing car fuel efficiency by 25% or installing some solar panels and windmills or whatever.peter banana posted:Climate Change: What is to be Done? Apparently nothing, so no need to try. Basically, yes. The international cooperation required to make the necessary changes in the timeframe required is not there. Geo-engineering solutions as the primary solution are inevitable at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
rscott posted:I don't generally disagree with you but heavily urbanized areas tend to be way more energy efficient than suburbs and rural areas on a per capita basis. If anything vast amounts of public housing and associated services need to be built up in a manner that will prioritize energy efficiency if the federal government wants to preserve any modicum of stability. A big problem with this is that most of the dense, highly urban areas in the US are extremely likely to be hosed by climate change. Actually doing something like this would require drastically building up the cities that are least likely to be affected by climate change, which means pretty much ignoring the areas of the country where people currently live. It's not a bad idea, but it's as ridiculously pie-in-the-sky as anything else. edit- TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Basically, yes. The international cooperation required to make the necessary changes in the timeframe required is not there. Geo-engineering solutions as the primary solution are inevitable at this point. Geoengineering isn't going to happen. It won't be seriously considered until the economic drag of climate change is too great for developed nations to actually afford meaningful projects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Where's arkane
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Do you think that anyone is going to say, "well, I might be boiled alive or dragged out of my house by an angry mob for not helping the government, but unless they pay me well, I won't help save the world!" That actually sounds pretty likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
[quote="Paradoxish" post=""467966124"] Geoengineering isn't going to happen. It won't be seriously considered until the economic drag of climate change is too great for developed nations to actually afford meaningful projects. [/quote] Sulfate aerosol injection is cheap as hell. Cost won't be the determining factor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 09:04
|
|
