|
Star Man posted:I will be, but it's a women's march. Climate justice is social justice. The Women's March on Washington explicitly sought out and partnered with 350, League of Conservation Voters, Climate First, and Greenpeace. I would be very conscientious about "hijacking" the message, but there is going to be a hell of a lot of environmental groups signing up a hell of a lot of new volunteers and activists this weekend.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Yeah, this is largely it. I've mentioned a reduced quality of life for first worlders in this thread a bunch of times, but what I really mean is just reduced consumption. There's no reason people can't be as happy (or happier) than they are now with less stuff and it's not like addressing climate change in meaningful ways means giving up the trappings of modern, technological society. There's a lot of social options that are only really painful if you absolutely refuse to live in a world that's at all different from the one we have right now. There's also a strong argument to be made that one of the major issues that got us into this mess is disposable goods. Even before the smartphone era, we were drowning ourselves in a sea of cheap, throwaway plastic crap, much of which was produced for pennies on the other side of the planet. Most of my grandparents' furniture is still around and still in great shape; my parents' furniture is all long gone, because it was made in the '70s with an eye towards what's basically forced obsolescence. A really easy way to reduce your consumption is to, when possible, invest in long-lasting, locally-produced items. There's a lot of discussion right now, here and there, about a big return to varnished lumber as a construction material, since a well-made wooden item can last for decades with minimal care, which makes it a strong carbon sink. http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/world%E2%80%99s-most-advanced-building-material-wood
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Any solution to climate change will require limits to consumption. Otherwise even if you use technology to double the amount of consumption that you can sustainably support... Oopsy we'll just quadruple consumption. There has to be a deviation from the rule that given X available, we will consume X+1. I don't see how you arrive at this corrollary that any discussion of consumption limits on the west will lead to "strict" limits on the third world. Figuring out how to support 6 Chinas is a long way away from figuring out how to support 6 mega-Americas. The thing is that we can't support six Chinas without doubling global CO2 emissions, even if the US and European Union ceased emitting CO2 entirely. Barring a bountiful clean energy source you're condemning a large part of the world to never develop, and if a bountiful clean energy source exists there's no reason to limit energy consumption in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The thing is that we can't support six Chinas without doubling global CO2 emissions, even if the US and European Union ceased emitting CO2 entirely. Barring a bountiful clean energy source you're condemning a large part of the world to never develop, and if a bountiful clean energy source exists there's no reason to limit energy consumption in the first place. Six Chinas would equate to 120% of current emissions if energy generation technology do not improve. Six mega-USAs would be over 300%. Even with 'bountiful clean energy' consumption will never be fully pollution or resource consumption free, so there will have to be limits. And real, realistically it will be impossible to get energy emissions to zero, so we have to make up for the shortfall with improvements in efficiency and consumption limits. The alternative is billions dying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
It's possible to get emissions to zero and even negative. The question is how to achieve the political will to do it however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The thing is that we can't support six Chinas without doubling global CO2 emissions, even if the US and European Union ceased emitting CO2 entirely. Barring a bountiful clean energy source you're condemning a large part of the world to never develop, and if a bountiful clean energy source exists there's no reason to limit energy consumption in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:There's also a strong argument to be made that one of the major issues that got us into this mess is disposable goods. Even before the smartphone era, we were drowning ourselves in a sea of cheap, throwaway plastic crap, much of which was produced for pennies on the other side of the planet. Most of my grandparents' furniture is still around and still in great shape; my parents' furniture is all long gone, because it was made in the '70s with an eye towards what's basically forced obsolescence. A really easy way to reduce your consumption is to, when possible, invest in long-lasting, locally-produced items. CLT construction sounds super awesome, and I can't wait to see it start getting more use in the US. I do wonder at that articles carbon claims though. There is no way the cutting, milling, gluing, and construction of CLT buildings is carbon negative. It would be cool to see how much the carbon in the wood offsets the construction's carbon footprint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Six Chinas would equate to 120% of current emissions if energy generation technology do not improve. Six mega-USAs would be over 300%. Even with 'bountiful clean energy' consumption will never be fully pollution or resource consumption free, so there will have to be limits. And real, realistically it will be impossible to get energy emissions to zero, so we have to make up for the shortfall with improvements in efficiency and consumption limits. You're wrong on those numbers, China as of 2014 emitted 10M kt of CO2, or 30% of the global total, so six would emit approximately 180%, and since Chinese emissions are climbing rapidly it's probably closer to 200% using 2017 numbers. Anyway, I'm not objecting to the idea of literally any limit on energy production. What I am objecting to is Paradoxish's claims that we have to limit energy production so stringently that it will not only stop the growth of but force reductions in standards of living. That's not a desirable or even a realistic scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The alternative is billions dying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:CLT construction sounds super awesome, and I can't wait to see it start getting more use in the US. I do wonder at that articles carbon claims though. There is no way the cutting, milling, gluing, and construction of CLT buildings is carbon negative. It would be cool to see how much the carbon in the wood offsets the construction's carbon footprint. Hmm, can't believe I haven't heard of this, but yeah there's no way the construction process ends up carbon negative. This is definitely a neat concept, and there's something poetic about immobilizing atmospheric carbon into the built environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
http://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/t3-becomes-the-first-modern-tall-wood-building-in-the-us_o Along the same lines, here's some discussion about the newly-built T3 building in Minneapolis. There's way too much transport involved for my liking, but I'm not an architect, so this is an interesting look at some of what might be coming next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Where are you getting this number from? 950 million people rely on the Yangtze and Ganges rivers, both of which will be gone once the glaciers on the Himalayas melt. Add in the nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and the ice age in Europe, and the flooding of every coastal region in the world, it seems ridiculous to imply that billions of people will not be dying as a direct result of climate change in the next 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:950 million people rely on the Yangtze and Ganges rivers, both of which will be gone once the glaciers on the Himalayas melt. Add in the nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and the ice age in Europe, and the flooding of every coastal region in the world, it seems ridiculous to imply that billions of people will not be dying as a direct result of climate change in the next 50 years. Sounds like typical non-scientific goon connect-the-dots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
(65 million years ago) Dinosaur 1: Yo that big ball of fire is gonna hit the earth and kill us all Dinosaur 2: You don't know that for sure, you are making assumptions And I guess some dinosaurs did live on as birds and poo poo, so Dinosaur 2 was technically right 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Not only that, but also lived a happier life by harvesting all those whinny Dinosaur 1 tears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Plenty of enthusiasts haven't upgraded PCs in years; the six-year-old Intel 2500k is still within 25% of more recent cpus in the real world at most with many games seeing little to (more rarely) literally zero benefit from 6700k or 7600k chips all running usually at a standardized 4GHz. Upgrading is done more for features or convenience. My 2600k running at 4.2Ghz with a Corsair closed loop cooling thingy was built about 6yrs ago & I only put a gtx970 in it because the old gtx580 packed up. It runs pretty much everything at max detail & 60+ fps *edit* how the gently caress did this end up in wrong thread? anyways..ignore me I'm obviously a tard! Trainee PornStar fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Anyway, I'm not objecting to the idea of literally any limit on energy production. What I am objecting to is Paradoxish's claims that we have to limit energy production so stringently that it will not only stop the growth of but force reductions in standards of living. That's not a desirable or even a realistic scenario. I think you're misunderstanding me, at least somewhat. I'm not saying that I want to curb growth, I'm saying that growth is going to slow either way. Rapid sea level rise over the next 50-60 years alone will be enough to stall the economies of major developed nations, and that's not even taking into account the kind of damage we're going to see from droughts and more extreme weather. And to be clear, I'm not talking about crazy extreme apocalyptic scenarios here. Coastal cities don't need to literally be underwater for businesses to decide that they no longer want to operate in a place that's under constant threat of flooding and storm damage. The Obama administration even recognized that this will be a problem very soon. The cost associated with businesses and people migrating away from the largest economic centers in the country is going to be enormous. And then you have the (likely even more severe) potential political effects of climate change related migration from other countries. That said, you're really going to need to clarify what your argument here is if you want me to come up with a better response. If we're going to attempt to mitigate climate change damage then we have to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions. This is a fact. Even geoengineering schemes like aerosol sulfates absolutely require this (and, eventually, carbon sequestration), because without removing the carbon from the atmosphere we're just building up an even larger problem to deal with later. If you're suggesting that we do this in a way that doesn't involve a reduction in consumption then you're really going to need an argument that's more specific than "reducing consumption is bad and I don't want to do it." Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:(65 million years ago) Dinosaur 3 became the chicken I ate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Or, it is putting the dots together and seeing the almost certain outcome. Climate mitigation being hard or not is not precisely the issue at hand. We will not meet the Paris targets with the policies that are currently planned. I sincerely doubt that the Trump administration will come out with more severe emissions cuts and regulations. Even if he is removed from office in four years in a Democratic wave that lets proper policies be put into place, we will almost certainly have lost the chance to stay under 2C - a target which, as if it needs reminding, was calculated without factoring in any tipping points, indications of which we could be seeing right now in the Arctic. The next couple of years will show for certain. I don't know, most of the people in this thread who think any kids they have will live in mad max world actually seem pretty under informed and channeling climate change as the point of neurosis for their depression or justification for their lifestyle choices. TheNakedFantastic fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Sounds like typical non-scientific goon connect-the-dots. I admire your optimism, but human civilization has a pretty poor track record w/r/t reacting to massive, sudden shifts in the prevailing order. If we make it through the next 100 years with merely WWII-esque numbers of deaths due to Climate Change we'll be insanely lucky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Where are you getting this number from? If consumption rises without limit, especially without any advances in clean energy, how the gently caress do billions *not* die?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
The narrative in this thread really does seem to be overburdened by the kind of militant pro-life assholes who would gladly see the bulk of the earth's surface paved over or monocultured- just so a few billion utterly worthless human lives can be supported at any cost. No, the west does not need to tone down consumption so that the developing world can raise itself to something close to our standard of living. That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Did we stop putting out carbon when we hit a point of effectively universal resource availability? gently caress no. And neither will bumblefuck farmers from India when they get raised out of poverty, or their children, or their grandchildren, because humans always want more. No, the west needs to lower its standard of living through the loving floor to something approaching a century ago if it wants to survive a climate apocalypse, AND several billion people need to die worldwide. Here, there, everywhere. I don't care in the slightest where the bombs drop as long as four or five billion of us die overnight. Yeah, including me, I certainly have nothing to offer the next 50 years except idle consumption and carbon output. There is no compromise. Willfully enacting a mass-extinction of the flora and fauna which evolved alongside us, just so we can poo poo out some more worthless humans in a ghetto and feed them gruel until they either poo poo out some more humans or die, is insanity. You are insane if you think human life is even slightly as valuable as anything else in our global ecosystem at this stage of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Could we maybe identify the names of companies with investments in coal, both US and abroad? That seems like it would be a decent start to something more productive than the current discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I think you're misunderstanding me, at least somewhat. I'm not saying that I want to curb growth, I'm saying that growth is going to slow either way. Rapid sea level rise over the next 50-60 years alone will be enough to stall the economies of major developed nations, and that's not even taking into account the kind of damage we're going to see from droughts and more extreme weather. And to be clear, I'm not talking about crazy extreme apocalyptic scenarios here. Coastal cities don't need to literally be underwater for businesses to decide that they no longer want to operate in a place that's under constant threat of flooding and storm damage. The Obama administration even recognized that this will be a problem very soon. The cost associated with businesses and people migrating away from the largest economic centers in the country is going to be enormous. And then you have the (likely even more severe) potential political effects of climate change related migration from other countries. The part about climate change reducing growth seems like a completely different point to me. But if it isn't what I'm still saying applies just as much. Scenarios like rapidly rising sea levels are going to decimate countries like Bangladesh not as much, but much more than the first world. If the point is that the current trajectory points us towards severe austerity in the first world and holocaust in the third you've got me, but I got an impression that you were saying something more like "If we tighten our belts more in the West, we can mitigate this." Anyway, yes, I recognize the need to drastically reduce carbon emissions. Where the problem comes in is when you premise doing so on a reduction of consumption (meaning, I presume, energy consumption) in first world countries without acknowledging the corollary of reduced consumption in very poor countries as well. The majority of carbon isn't emitted in rich countries, even using a consumption-based accounting that includes imports, and their carbon emissions both in raw tonnage and a proportion of global emissions are falling. Reducing or even eliminating OECD emissions would be insufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change. The most important emissions challenge over the next half-century isn't going to be reducing those emissions, (though it's still an important problem), it's how the rest of the world that's been promised development is going to get it without becoming the next China in terms of carbon. If you want a realistic plan to limit climate change you're going to have to address that, because you can't go to these countries and tell them "Well look, we're going to tighten our belts over here, but you guys basically have to give up on that whole development thing we promised". And even if you could it wouldn't be just.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Rime posted:The narrative in this thread really does seem to be overburdened by the kind of militant pro-life assholes who would gladly see the bulk of the earth's surface paved over or monocultured- just so a few billion utterly worthless human lives can be supported at any cost. If someone wanted to make a perfect parody of misanthropic green fanaticism it would be something like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
You keep using that word 'corollary' a lot, I'm not sure you understand what it means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You keep using that word 'corollary' a lot, I'm not sure you understand what it means. I'm using it in its literal sense, something that automatically follows from a point we both accept. I don't think it's unreasonable or even controversial to suggest that we address the fact that reducing global carbon emission requires that the 75% that isn't emitted in the US and Europe reduce as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Could we maybe identify the names of companies with investments in coal, both US and abroad? That seems like it would be a decent start to something more productive than the current discussion. As in, what we want folks to divest from? Usually the standard is "top 200" composed by Fossil Free Indexes. Here's the top 100 oil and top 100 coal companies, by reported reserves. Top financial entities with investments in these companies is harder to pin down. I speculate that after the major banks and financial institutions, big pension funds have got to be up there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Rime posted:The narrative in this thread really does seem to be overburdened by the kind of militant pro-life assholes who would gladly see the bulk of the earth's surface paved over or monocultured- just so a few billion utterly worthless human lives can be supported at any cost. You're aware that "the bombs" you're referring to would do irreparable harm to every inch of the planet, right? You're aware of, ah, anything at all, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm using it in its literal sense, something that automatically follows from a point we both accept. I don't think it's unreasonable or even controversial to suggest that we address the fact that reducing global carbon emission requires that the 75% that isn't emitted in the US and Europe reduce as well. 'US and Europe' is not the entirity of the non-third world. Once you eliminate the likes of Japan and Russia and Canada and Australia and yeah, China and India, you only end with about 10% left. 
Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:As in, what we want folks to divest from? Usually the standard is "top 200" composed by Fossil Free Indexes. Here's the top 100 oil and top 100 coal companies, by reported reserves. Look at Trump's cabinet. That's a fairly comprehensive list.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:'US and Europe' is not the entirity of the non-third world. Once you eliminate the likes of Japan and Russia and Canada and Australia and yeah, China and India, you only end with about 10% left. Are you really saying we should include China and India in the definition of "first world"? Because even if you combine every OECD country and throw in Russia to boot you still don't have a majority of carbon emissions, and the ratio is growing further and further every day because third-world development requires energy production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Rime posted:The narrative in this thread really does seem to be overburdened by the kind of militant pro-life assholes who would gladly see the bulk of the earth's surface paved over or monocultured- just so a few billion utterly worthless human lives can be supported at any cost. _/ / 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
It's also silly to expect emissions to correspond necessarily with living standards because, hey: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/afbeeldingen/pbl-2012-global-co2-emissions-per-capita-1990-2011.jpg China's per capita emissions is crossing that of Europe's. The lesson here is that we *can* deliver greater efficiency than we see in China, and with Europe being not actually a hellhole, we can probably with improving technology drive down emissions without very terrible compromise on living standards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Are you really saying we should include China and India in the definition of "first world"? Because even if you combine every OECD country and throw in Russia to boot you still don't have a majority of carbon emissions, and the ratio is growing further and further every day because third-world development requires energy production. Please look up what Third World means. Or gently caress, just tell me what you take it to mean. Because if you're identifying the need to keep the 'third world' from becoming 'like China', it sure doesn't make a lot of sense if you include China in the third world. And as I said, China has a higher per capita rate of emissions than Europe. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Please look up what Third World means. It doesn't have a set definition. It originally meant the poor, usually former colonized countries that weren't part of the industrialized, usually former colonizing countries (first world) or the communist countries (second world). Now it just means poor countries and I don't have any trouble including India and China in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Lumpy the Cook posted:You're aware that "the bombs" you're referring to would do irreparable harm to every inch of the planet, right? Chernobyl is one of the most ecologically vibrant places in Europe now, thanks to all the humans loving off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's also silly to expect emissions to correspond necessarily with living standards because, hey: The thing is that it's precisely Europe's wealth and level of development that allows it to produce similar levels carbon per capita, while Chinese standard of living is correspondingly much lower. That's almost exactly the problem I'm trying to highlight. And relatively speaking China is much more developed compared to India or Africa, so how are you going to develop those countries up to China's level without producing corresponding levels of carbon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It doesn't have a set definition. It originally meant the poor, usually former colonized countries that weren't part of the industrialized, usually former colonizing countries (first world) or the communist countries (second world). Now it just means poor countries and I don't have any trouble including India and China in it. Then you've moved the goalposts a lot from that 75% figure you mentioned. Okay, so the third world is composed of China, and the rest of the world. China has made some moves towards cutting its emissions. Seen in terms of its living standards to its emissions, it is currently *highly inefficient*. Its population is also due to stop growing and start shrinking. So China has pretty good chance of simultaneously improving its living standards while also cutting emissions both in total and per head. India and the rest of the third world are a tiny fraction of current emissions so your point of the corollary doesn't have much weight. I mean yeah, we don't want them to reach per-capita emissions like current China or worse. But the example of Europe shows that an improved path of sustainable development is possible for them. It's not really greatly likely that they'll turn into China 2 really, before they get hosed by climate change, or when fossil fuels become unavailable. Thug Lessons posted:The thing is that it's precisely Europe's wealth and level of development that allows it to produce similar levels carbon per capita, while Chinese standard of living is correspondingly much lower. That's almost exactly the problem I'm trying to highlight. And relatively speaking China is much more developed compared to India or Africa, so how are you going to develop those countries up to China's level without producing corresponding levels of carbon? 'Exactly the problem you are trying to highlight'? what You've been arguing all along that increased consumption and therefore emissions is needed to improve living standards. There's like a gigantic example that you can have improved living standards with reduced resource consumption, that higher levels of development can reduce consumption and this becomes 'exactly the problem I'm trying to highlight'? Also, no, turning into China is not, in fact, the only route of international development. Consider that China turned from way below the global average to above Europe in emissions only in the last decade, when their living standards had already improved considerably previously. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
Not the whole, "The third world don't deserve to have a high quality of life because I am in the first world and don't want to have to use less energy, argument again". The third world consists of real people who want to have better lives. They are developing and they also deserve to. They deserve a high quality of life just as I do. And if everyone rises to the lifestyle that Americans live, we are so loving appallingly boned its just stupid. The only rational response is for those in the first world, to live lifestyles that use much less carbon. We can preserve vast aspects of our quality of life in doing so, in choosing how to live. It quiet simply must happen. Or it won't and we continue to get hosed. Because drat the third worlders for trying to enjoy life!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:18
|
|