|
ChairMaster posted:Consume what you want, expand your carbon footprint as much as you need in order to get whatever you can out of whats left of the world before it's too late. The problem here is that some people have a "conscience", which causes them to not want to do things that they know will negatively affect other people, such as expanding their carbon footprint as much as they need in order to get whatever they can out of what's left of the world.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Yes and other people are sane enough to realize that their carbon footprint will never come close to approaching that of Exxon let alone the billions of humans who also do not give a poo poo, who indeed will never give a poo poo until the oceans flood their homes and they die of starvation, and as such there is no point in living a life of severe asceticism. There are many reasonable appeals for people to consume less and alter their lifestyle, climate change isn't one of them. Anywho, Atmospheric C02 levels have passed 410ppm for the first time in recorded history. 10ppm in 8 months is a bit of a spike. Sheesh. Rime fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Rime posted:Yes and other people are sane enough to realize that their carbon footprint will never come close to approaching that of Exxon
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Rime posted:Yes and other people are sane enough to realize that their carbon footprint will never come close to approaching that of Exxon Most corporations are lovely but outsourcing responsibility to them is also just wrong. They service a demand, people with cars. Its that demand that needs to be reduced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Most corporations are lovely but outsourcing responsibility to them is also just wrong. They service a demand, people with cars. Its that demand that needs to be reduced. lol if you believe this maybe crack open a book buddy, because corporations don't exist to service human demands, they exist to make profits
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
If there was no demand for products derived from oil, Exxon would have zero emissions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
spf3million posted:If there was no demand for products derived from oil, Exxon would have zero emissions. If it was illegal to use fossil fuels, Exxon would have zero emissions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Whether or not you consume as much as you possibly can will have literally zero affect on the future of the world. Whether or not you convince every single person you know to reduce their emissions to an absolute minimum also will have zero affect. It simply does not matter, this problem is in the hands of the governments of the world, which are all totally uninterested in solving it, or doing anything more than making themselves look good by pretending they care about it. Any effort being put toward reducing your impact is completely and utterly wasted. Don't be a victim of sunk cost fallacy, you still have time to enjoy our access to wreckless consumerism before it all falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Whether or not you consume as much as you possibly can will have literally zero affect on the future of the world. Whether or not you convince every single person you know to reduce their emissions to an absolute minimum also will have zero affect. It simply does not matter, this problem is in the hands of the governments of the world, which are all totally uninterested in solving it, or doing anything more than making themselves look good by pretending they care about it. Any effort being put toward reducing your impact is completely and utterly wasted. It's reckless. Use some of your enjoyment time in the library.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:If it was illegal to use fossil fuels, Exxon would have zero emissions. but... but... free market...
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Rime posted:10ppm in 8 months is a bit of a spike. Sheesh. There's a yearly cycle that varies by about that much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:but... but... free market...  If we can't save everyone, we can at least save ourselves and those close to us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:If it was illegal to use fossil fuels, Exxon would have zero emissions. That being said, you can blame Exxon for lobbying the various levels of government to influence policy, but ultimately the people allow it to happen by continuing to reelect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
It is just because it is so. -spf3million, esteemed forums poster
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
VectorSigma posted:There's a yearly cycle that varies by about that much. Even so, it's been going up about 2 ppm/yr lately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
*spf3millions spends days lurking the climate change thread, waiting for his time to come* "fossil fuel companies are a lead contributor to climate change" *finally, my time has come* Well, here's the thing bud.... Something you might not have thought about.... If nobody used oil..... there would be no emissions.... demand.... supply....
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Well, I'd love for there to be a political solution to this but, yeah, I'm going to expose my Jewish neighbours. After all, I can't stop The Holocaust all by myself. Giving one or two families away won't make a difference, gives me a better standing with The Party and perhaps I get to take over their flat. That's just common sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Captain Scandinaiva posted:Well, I'd love for there to be a political solution to this but, yeah, I'm going to expose my Jewish neighbours. After all, I can't stop The Holocaust all by myself. Giving one or two families away won't make a difference, gives me a better standing with The Party and perhaps I get to take over their flat. i knew we were heading down godwin road but i didnt expect it to take this form. well done 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Shoutout to all the other goons going to a March For Science today. Excited to make some noise. If you can't make it today, there is a Climate March in just about every major American city next weekend. Go forth and be loud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
I wonder if it's almost counterproductive using science awareness to combat climate change. it was never a science problem; it was always a political problem. People are going to think that "more science" is the solution to fight climate change. There are so many people that still thing that all it takes is green energy policy initiative. That the real issue we're facing is republicans/conservatives stymieing the process. But it's so much more than that. Our entire society is based on the exploitation of the environment. Simply acknowledging that the problem exists won't do anything. A complete restructuring is the only solution. You could make the argument that any attempt to delay climate change at this point would cause more suffering. reducing emissions little by little will only delay the inevitable, and the further along we are, the greater the human population that will be subjected to horribly painful existence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I'd argue that without a price on carbon emissions, emitters will continue to make the most economic decision for themselves personally. This is why governments are necessary. No other institution has the ability to enact and enforce a policy for the greater good while inconveniencing everyone (higher costs on carbon emissions). Governments have let emitters continue to emit and have let consumers continue to use energy without accounting for their emissions. No government is ever going to do that, because no democratic government, and a non-zero number of undemocratic ones, will survive telling a significant fraction of their population that they have to be priced out of the ability to heat their homes and buy certain foods (since an increase in the price of energy will be felt across most sectors of the economy) for the greater good, while people in other countries continue to consume recklessly. At this point there are still solutions, but they are nearly as horrible to contemplate as the long term effects of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:I wonder if it's almost counterproductive using science awareness to combat climate change. it was never a science problem; it was always a political problem. People are going to think that "more science" is the solution to fight climate change. There are so many people that still thing that all it takes is green energy policy initiative. That the real issue we're facing is republicans/conservatives stymieing the process. But it's so much more than that. Our entire society is based on the exploitation of the environment. Simply acknowledging that the problem exists won't do anything. A complete restructuring is the only solution. The point is to make denialism socially costly. Evidence should be a nonpartisan issue, and both parties want the credibility of expertise on their side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:The point is to make denialism socially costly. Evidence should be a nonpartisan issue, and both parties want the credibility of expertise on their side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There will always be someone willing to lend a veneer of respectability and authority to whatever bullshit people want to believe, because there will always be money to be made in telling people that everything will be fine, they don't have to change, and otherwise sparing them the painful dissonance of admitting that they were wrong and people they have grown to hate were right. Seems like a great reason to visibly show the consensus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
"Yes, but you see, if we just show people that the belief they are emotionally invested in has been deemed wrong by all these scientists and SMEs from my tribe, they will feel pressure to change their minds, rather than seek out reenforcement from their like-minded peers." Yeah, OK, good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Did... did you somehow miss like, ALL OF THE PAST 2 YEARS? Facts are dead, the only thing that matters anymore is what you want to believe to make yourself feel good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
loving LOL if you think a few thousand people marching along a predetermined route vetted by the local municipality and police forces is ever going to invoke meaningful change in modern society. Go ask a Venezuelan how weeks of mass peaceful demonstration is working out for them, when they are actually starving as their country collapses around them. The idea that protest marches accomplish anything, beyond instilling a false sense of accomplishment in attendees, is the best lie ever sold to the kind of people who might otherwise invoke actual change. It's has no more impact than changing your facebook picture in TYOOL 2017, indeed it hasn't amounted to jack poo poo ever since that long past era in which the ruling class had some legitimate fear that the rabble might storm the gates and guillotine them if they did not submit to the mobs demands. You want to change something? Form a deep underground cell, publicize your agenda, start dragging the most powerful climate change deniers into the street and loving shoot them. Nobody is ever going to take such a step in the west, pleased as we are with the relative comfort of our lives aside from a slow steady decline in living standards and placated by all our readily accessible entertainment, so you can expect to watch the world burn while squabbling over what somebody else should do to fix things. Have fun walking for a sense of moral superiority, it has nothing to do with "science". 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
I'm at a march atm. Decent size
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
My tire armor is ready brother
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Rime posted:loving LOL if you think a few thousand people marching along a predetermined route vetted by the local municipality and police forces is ever going to invoke meaningful change in modern society. Go ask a Venezuelan how weeks of mass peaceful demonstration is working out for them, when they are actually starving as their country collapses around them. Oh my god somebody actually gets it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
In b4 internet tough guys who want to justify their inaction. Wait too late.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No government is ever going to do that, because no democratic government, and a non-zero number of undemocratic ones, will survive telling a significant fraction of their population that they have to be priced out of the ability to heat their homes and buy certain foods (since an increase in the price of energy will be felt across most sectors of the economy) for the greater good, while people in other countries continue to consume recklessly. Agree with this 100%
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Rime posted:loving LOL if you think a few thousand people marching along a predetermined route vetted by the local municipality and police forces is ever going to invoke meaningful change in modern society. Go ask a Venezuelan how weeks of mass peaceful demonstration is working out for them, when they are actually starving as their country collapses around them. Wow. I was just thinking this (except the bit about marches being useless, they're a gateway drug to greater activism). And then I thought 'holy cow, you can't post that' and then you posted that. Then again, I live in Australia and our government is trying to give a billion dollars to a mining company so they can make one of the largest coal mines on Earth and dredge a section of the Great Barrier Reef to transport it to India where they can burn it all. Someone could assassinate the entire cabinet and there would be another row of politicians ready to give that billion dollars to make that death mine. What we need is brain washing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Rime posted:loving LOL if you think a few thousand people marching along a predetermined route vetted by the local municipality and police forces is ever going to invoke meaningful change in modern society. Go ask a Venezuelan how weeks of mass peaceful demonstration is working out for them, when they are actually starving as their country collapses around them. Marches are good for recruitment, agitation, organization building and so on Did someone argue that marches are, "one weird trick to create Utopia (oligarchs hate it!)," or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Blazing Zero posted:i knew we were heading down godwin road but i didnt expect it to take this form. well done Yeah, I'm ashamed of that post. But at the same time not. Dead Reckoning posted:No government is ever going to do that, because no democratic government, and a non-zero number of undemocratic ones, will survive telling a significant fraction of their population that they have to be priced out of the ability to heat their homes and buy certain foods (since an increase in the price of energy will be felt across most sectors of the economy) for the greater good, while people in other countries continue to consume recklessly. I don't know about that, liberal and conservative governments survived, though barely, imposing austerity and increasing wealth disparity making life worse for millions of people across most of the democratic world. And without any existential threat, just "because of today's global competitive markets...", "according to the experts..." What I'm saying is, making it so that today's rich come out way on top in tomorrow's sustainable society is our best bet. Also, if people were completely locked in their views, nothing would ever happen, historical change through anything but violence wouldn't exist. There are a load of psychological reasons that make it difficult for people to abandon their beliefs, but it does happen. And people die all the time while new people grow up. It may be too slow a change and too little anyway to make a difference in the end, yeah. But resorting to violence when you are already at a disadvantage in terms of power is not a very good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Marches are good for recruitment, agitation, organization building and so on what the gently caress kind of recruitment, agitation, and organization can you really accomplish at a protest that would closely resembles a silicon valley coffee shop? The Earth is burning to death and we got a bunch of people walking down the street to acknowledge the definition of burning. What's the best case scenario out of this? Trump does a 180 and accepts that climate change is real? then what? Where do we go with all this? Where the gently caress has incrementalism gotten us? People have been doing these bullshit liberal protests for years to satisfy their need to become involved and it hasn't gotten us anywhere. We are so incredibly hosed right now. and this is the best we got? Handing out DSA pamphlets to a bunch of reddit nerds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Yea, I'm a little surprised that there are people in this thread who seriously believe that anything short of what Rime posted (and even that would likely not be enough) could have any meaningful effect on climate change policy at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
The myth of non-violent protest is hammered in to most americans
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
It seems so utterly childish though, it's like believing in Santa Claus or something. It's so blindingly self-evident that it's completely worthless, but a few misleading selective MLK quotes convinces entire generations of people that non-violent protest is the way to get things done? I know you can't really blame people for the circumstances brought about by a comfortable life at the expense of the poor and the environment at large, but I still feel like anyone with access to the entirety of human knowledge at their fingertips at all times should know better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:31
|
|