|
MiddleOne posted:Define food-chain. Like Arkane elaborated on the EU (due to our comically sized agricultural subsidies) is a huge net producer of food. Most of the food-stuffs we import are the food-stuffs that are not really that important.
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You say that like cutting off the coffee supply wouldn't cause the Nordic Countries to descend into barbarism. This would probably end civilization as we know it north of the arctic circle.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
Could you grow coffee in greenhouses?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Could you grow coffee in greenhouses? Yes, but it's poo poo. The agriculture University of Iceland has a coffee tree and they get just enough beans each year to have icelandic grown coffee at their yearly party. A coffee shop owner I know snagged an invite one year and said while it was exciting to try locally grown, it was very bad in taste. Luckily dandelion roots can be roasted and brewed for a pseudo substitute (caffeine would have to be added tho)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You say that like cutting off the coffee supply wouldn't cause the Nordic Countries to descend into barbarism. Nah, they'd just go a viking.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 09:20
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Food production has been growing faster than population for many decades now across the world, and Europe produces way more food than they eat, which is why they are a net exporter of basic food goods (excluding stuff like coffee/spices, which they import massively). A disruption of food supply would require a political event (see: Venezuela); droughts and floods occur all the time in Europe without major disruption. I was under the impression that it was a lot more precarious than that. Maybe I'm putting too much weight on things like https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/puma_03/ I'm not sure what you mean by conspiratorial thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
lofi posted:I was under the impression that it was a lot more precarious than that. Maybe I'm putting too much weight on things like https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/puma_03/ That study makes mention that Europe, more so than some other places, may be susceptible to food chain disruption, and makes recommendations that could ameliorate those concerns. I think it's a huge leap to go from that to what you posted (one bad season could lead to mad max, fascism spreading), which even granting that it was a little bit of creative hyperbole, still seems like a dystopian fever dream. One other point: the interconnectedness of the world ends up being a great hedge against food disruption because ill effects are localized, and one area's bad season is another area's bountiful season. We're overall becoming much better at growing food, and as that article alludes to, better at distributing it to a growing population. Which is why famines are becoming much less common, and over the past couple of decades, have mainly been the result of political strife rather than because of food production. I mentioned conspiratorial thinking because you seem to think we're headed for some highly negative outcome that you need to escape and prepare for -- there are people in this thread who agree with you. Yet, humanity is heading in the exact opposite direction (aside from the current bubble in populism that will ebb over time), and climate impacts, even if you believe in the most dire scientific predictions, will take multiple decades to manifest themselves in meaningful ways. If you're really that concerned about your own impact, it's becoming cheaper and easier to live an essentially carbon neutral life, and will become MUCH cheaper and easier still by the time any hypothetical children are entering adulthood.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
Yeah, the panic and nihilism coming from within the thread is usually about the uncertainty of the future and the areas that already live precariously; if you're living in a fairly developed nation, and you're not already desperately poor, you're probably going to be able to live a comfortable-ish life the whole way through. If you're living in a place near the equator that has experienced or is experiencing desertification and your water supplies are going to be depleted or at least beyond capacity in a couple of decades, that would be a short-term concern, as would living in, say, much of the Caribbean right now. The effects of global warming are here, they're happening, they are affecting peoples' lives for the worse, but, as always, it disproportionately hits people who are poor and isolated first and worst. As much as I'm prone to outbursts of rage and depression myself, and as much as I now limit my intake of this thread because of that, I'd personally advise trying to remain calm. Most of the effects of global warming aren't a looming existential threat to most of the posters in this thread, and trying to fight them isn't going to be made any easier if you let the emotional impact of the severity of the situation gently caress your poo poo up. It's still important to learn, to teach, and to fight against those effects, given the alternative is 'fascist authoritarianism for the rest of human history and plausibly human extinction within a couple of centuries', but it inches in by degrees, so to speak. I guess it'd be pretty neato to live to 200 to watch how this all pans out, but I don't think that's happening for me or anyone in our generation, so just do what you can where you can and hope it's enough.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:Yeah, the panic and nihilism coming from within the thread is usually about the uncertainty of the future and the areas that already live precariously; if you're living in a fairly developed nation, and you're not already desperately poor, you're probably going to be able to live a comfortable-ish life the whole way through. If you're living in a place near the equator that has experienced or is experiencing desertification and your water supplies are going to be depleted or at least beyond capacity in a couple of decades, that would be a short-term concern, as would living in, say, much of the Caribbean right now. The effects of global warming are here, they're happening, they are affecting peoples' lives for the worse, but, as always, it disproportionately hits people who are poor and isolated first and worst. lol at these safe little truisms people tell themselves quote:if you're living in a fairly developed nation, and you're not already desperately poor, you're probably going to be able to live a comfortable-ish life the whole way through ish, probably, kind of betrays how much you believe what you're saying quote:The effects of global warming are here, they're happening, they are affecting peoples' lives for the worse, but, as always, it disproportionately hits people who are poor and isolated first and worst. the only correct thing you said quote:Most of the effects of global warming aren't a looming existential threat to most of the posters in this thread  quote:I guess it'd be pretty neato to live to 200 to watch how this all pans out, but I don't think that's happening for me or anyone in our generation, so just do what you can where you can and hope it's enough. like you said, it's here, happening, and affecting people's lives for the worse. i dont know what you think we're not seeing but we literally are watching the consequences of our failure to act over the past hundred years play out in places like the middle east and southeast asia the whole "well, the first world will be fine if the third world it depends on for it's economic health falls apart" is such a dangerous thing to say or believe. i mean, maybe you actually think that, but the US/EU 'giving up' on stabilizing the rest of the world and focusing on themselves is effectively calling for a revolution because it's not going to happen as long as globalized supply chains are pulling in billions all of that being said, AceOfFlames has had enough depression meltdowns that he shouldn't be posting/reading this thread regardless. climate change will break brains that are soft and weak like his 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 14:26 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
Hey, sorry if it seems like I'm downplaying it, but I would think that 'hey human extinction is on the loving table here' is a pretty clear indication of how bad poo poo is. I would think that multiple signposts of 'hey if you live near the equator you're already in danger' is a pretty clear indication that poo poo Is Whack. Is global warming going to kill more of the people posting in this thread than heart disease or car accidents? Probably not. That doesn't mean it isn't serious, that doesn't mean it isn't one of the single largest issues facing us as a species, but panic doesn't tend to inform rational action well either. E: Re-reading your response makes me feel like the world's most ineffectual communicator, seriously. The central point was 'it's bad, but don't panic, panic doesn't help'. Maybe I should have just stopped there, so that I then wouldn't have to sit here rubbing my temples wondering why several consistent statements like 'you, as a poster in this thread, will probably not die directly of global warming effects', 'you probably don't need to panic and move to a farm', and 'this is a big loving issue that is hurting people right now' would all be called out as inconsistent with each other, with reality, or with the general thrust of the post. Shady Amish Terror fucked around with this message at 14:38 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
This isn't a problem for this generation, gently caress you got mine
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
I may be right, I may be wrong, but there isn't enough literature for what happens to the stability of weather during growing seasons worldwide once we hit 0 summer ice in the Arctic, and I think poo poo will get weirder year after year, straining all our vaunted food production systems over time to the point where nobody is unaffected. The estimate for that happening getting moved up from end of century to midcentury to sometime around 2030, plus the loss of all the 5 year ice and disappearance of spring around here are what have impressed on me a sense of urgency.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This isn't a problem for this generation, gently caress you got mine Do you like potato salad?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This isn't a problem for this generation, gently caress you got mine This is also not what I'm saying. I didn't think that the post needed to be an exhaustive list of everything that needs to be changed about society and everything a person can and should do about the problem (including but not limited to reducing your personal carbon load, not having kids, voting for people who aren't backwards corporate fuckshits), because I figured all of that probably would have already been extensively litigated in this, the thread entitled 'Climate Change: We're all going to die and it's your fault', but here we are I guess? Car Hater posted:I may be right, I may be wrong, but there isn't enough literature for what happens to the stability of weather during growing seasons worldwide once we hit 0 summer ice in the Arctic, and I think poo poo will get weirder year after year, straining all our vaunted food production systems over time to the point where nobody is unaffected. The estimate for that happening getting moved up from end of century to midcentury to sometime around 2030, plus the loss of all the 5 year ice and disappearance of spring around here are what have impressed on me a sense of urgency. See, this is good. It is good to see the evidence that global warming is here, now, and to treat that as a call to action, not as a reason to give up and wallow in nihilistic fatalism, not to act like this is a problem that isn't affecting us (and for which we are responsible), and not as a reason to panic about nebulous comparisons of food-chain stability and move to a farm instead of doing other things like campaigning for environmental change. I may not be confident that we're all going to starve in a decade, but I still support acting now, it is already a problem, it has BEEN a problem, and it WILL BE a problem, one that is already causing the suffering of millions, one that will kill billions left unchecked, but panicking does not solve problems. Is it actually necessary that I attach an essay to qualify the statement 'don't panic'? Has the word 'panic' taken on some new meaning of which I am unaware? E: Is it the 'human extinction' bit? Does that not strike the average person as terrifying even as a nebulous possibility? Has this thread gone in some new direction while I was away and nihilism is genuinely in vogue now? I feel like I've stepped on a landmine here with what I would have thought was an incredibly inoffensive, obvious take. Shady Amish Terror fucked around with this message at 15:41 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
if you had said "don't panic" nobody would have disagreed with you, but you said quote:if you're living in a fairly developed nation, and you're not already desperately poor, you're probably going to be able to live a comfortable-ish life the whole way through quote:Most of the effects of global warming aren't a looming existential threat to most of the posters in this thread both of which are demonstrably false those are just things you tell yourself to justify your disengagement
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
self unaware posted:if you had said "don't panic" nobody would have disagreed with you, but you said Then please allow me to qualify those statements and try to determine where I've hosed up. 'Comfortable-ish' means that if you're already able to put food on the table and have a place to live in a highly-developed country, those facts are likely to remain true. Your quality of life will steadily drop, your government will become an unsustainable fascist cesspit, but the post I was addressing talking about moving to a farm isn't really a direct engagement of most of those problems. Voting is a way of engaging those problems. Protesting is a way of engaging those problems. Changing one's own lifestyle is admirable, but once again, you do not have to literally move to a farm to deal with a nebulous threat of food instability. By 'looming existential threat', maybe my word choice was poor, but again, global warming is probably not going to catch up as the #1 cause of human fatality in developed countries for at least a few decades. It's better if you live in relative stability now to take the time we have now to fight to reduce the effects of climate change than to hedge against the nebulous possibility that climate change will catch up to you, personally, in this lifetime. I am literally arguing against disengaging from this fight, because I am arguing against loving off to a farm as a panic reaction to protect oneself. Now with that said, do you still disagree with the intent of those statements, or was it just really bad word choice on my part? E: I'm willing to accept that I'm a really poor communicator, but being accused of downplaying loving global warming is really rankling. Shady Amish Terror fucked around with this message at 15:53 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:'Comfortable-ish' means that if you're already able to put food on the table and have a place to live in a highly-developed country, those facts are likely to remain true. I can think of a lot of situations where I live in a highly developed country, can put food on the table, and would not describe it as "comfortable" quote:By 'looming existential threat', maybe my word choice was poor, but again, global warming is probably not going to catch up as the #1 cause of human fatality in developed countries for at least a few decades. It's better if you live in relative stability now to take the time we have now to fight to reduce the effects of climate change than to hedge against the nebulous possibility that climate change will catch up to you, personally, in this lifetime. I am literally arguing against disengaging from this fight, because I am arguing against loving off to a farm as a panic reaction to protect oneself. Nobody is saying global warming is going to be the #1 cause of human fatality in developed countries, that's just a strawman you've built in your own head. quote:Now with that said, do you still disagree with the intent of those statements, or was it just really bad word choice on my part? Then don't? And yes, I disagree with the intent of those statements. You're downplaying the consequences that the "developed" countries face by pretending like things will be "comfortable" for anyone posting in this thread who lives in one of theses countries. Ignoring that plenty of people in these threads are middle class individuals in those countries currently having their standards of living eviscerated. I mean, if you completely ignore the political implications and reality as it is today, I guess you could say climate change would do nothing to countries like the US, Australia, or the Netherlands. Plenty of people already don't live in comfort in those countries, if you think there's going to be some kind of heartwarming "yes, now that climate change is real we can finally come together and ensure our citizenry is able to live comfortably" moment you're fueled on blind optimism 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 16:04 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
self unaware posted:I can think of a lot of situations where I live in a highly developed country, can put food on the table, and would not describe it as "comfortable" self unaware posted:Nobody is saying global warming is going to be the #1 cause of human fatality in developed countries, that's just a strawman you've built in your own head. Okay, then I don't fully understand what I did wrong, and I apologize. I am genuinely not trying to downplay the seriousness of global warming, and if it really is that bad that you have determined beyond reasonable doubt that that is absolutely what those posts convey, please tell me if something in them can be changed so as not to mislead anyone stupid enough to glance across my own deranged rambling, or whatever. I'm already cutting down on red meat and leafy vegetables, I'm already committed to childlessness, I'm already living in poo poo and voting in every primary and every race for the farthest left I can, I am trying to manage the mental illness of two people on no money, what do I need to do to more effectively communicate about global warming. You are under no obligation here, obviously, this is just an earnest request for any insight you can offer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
I'm not saying you personally need to take any more action than you already are, or that you're making bad choices. I'm just sick of seeing people say "well yeah, it will suck for the rest of the world but the first world will largely be fine". It's just such an absurdly ignorant stance to take given the structure of today's economy and how dependent the standards of living in western countries are on global supply chains and a seemingly unstoppable rate of economic growth. Our political systems are wholly inept at dealing with the reality we're quickly approaching and given the trends we see today I don't see how it's not warranted to worry about your own personal security and safety in the future, especially if you're already approaching the margins of the middle class. I understand the desire to get everyone to "stop panicking" but the reality is we should be panicking if we desire to stop or abate it in any way. It's far more nihilistic to claim "well, climate change is going to happen, billions will die, and we'll all be fine" than it is to claim "it's a good idea to build a life that's less dependent on global supply chains". Now, I don't know if moving to a farm is a good idea and I don't advocate we all go off grid and become preppers, but the logic behind the action is far more sound than trying to calm people down by telling them everything will be ok knowing that it won't. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:'Comfortable-ish' means that if you're already able to put food on the table and have a place to live in a highly-developed country, those facts are likely to remain true. Your quality of life will steadily drop, your government will become an unsustainable fascist cesspit How do you square this gloomy prediction with the fact that the Earth has warmed by a modicum amount in the past 30 years, and yet quality of life has increased an absurd amount across the globe in that time period? And that, worldwide, on average, governments have become more democratic over that time-span? It's like you've created an alternate reality to fit your viewpoint, rather than look at the world around you to inform your views. edit: Also you shouldn't be so sensitive to this guy's nitpicks of your alarmism as not alarmist enough. Blind leading the blind, etc. Arkane fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Arkane posted:And that, worldwide, on average, governments have become more democratic over that time-span? Just to counter this point. President motherfucking Trump. It took him, what, a week or so after getting sworn in to remove 40 years of progress in regards to protecting our climate. Democracy is not a force for good if you cannot ensure that the people who vote actually do it for the betterment of all.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:Just to counter this point. I agree that Trump shows that populism can hijack a democracy and that when things like this happen, democracy declines....but I think it's sort of masking the more important point that the trajectory of the world is bending, in fits and starts, towards more freedom and better outcomes. Populism ebbs and flows. Zoom out from 2018 a little to the arc of where the race is going. We are getting smarter, wealthier, healthier, and freer. Some would argue that we do so at the expense of the planet. But this will be self-correcting, as it is already doing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
self unaware posted:I'm not saying you personally need to take any more action than you already are, or that you're making bad choices. I'm just sick of seeing people say "well yeah, it will suck for the rest of the world but the first world will largely be fine". It's just such an absurdly ignorant stance to take given the structure of today's economy and how dependent the standards of living in western countries are on global supply chains and a seemingly unstoppable rate of economic growth. Our political systems are wholly inept at dealing with the reality we're quickly approaching and given the trends we see today I don't see how it's not warranted to worry about your own personal security and safety in the future, especially if you're already approaching the margins of the middle class. I agree with all of this, but the original post I was responding to was positing moving to a farm. I advocated against that; I'd like to think that was a reasonable position, for the reasons I listed. I'll have a good long think about how we managed to get to this point in the conversation and what I did to trigger this reaction, because it was not my intent to suggest that first-world nations are unassailable bastions of first-world living, only that moving to a farm is an extreme reaction, and that there's still time to do things on a political scale to mitigate damage without having to disengage and retreat to a farm to protect one's own life. Thank you for explaining your issue with what I'd said instead of immediately tuning me out. I feel incredibly lovely for having inspired that reaction in the first place. On the off chance I try to communicate on the issue again in the future, I'll see if I can condense my rambling to its essential elements to avoid doing that again. E: See, now I know that I've done a really lovely job communicating if I'm eating poo poo from both directions. I'll bow out and I apologize for having interjected.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:How do you square this gloomy prediction with the fact that the Earth has warmed by a modicum amount in the past 30 years, and yet quality of life has increased an absurd amount across the globe in that time period? And that, worldwide, on average, governments have become more democratic over that time-span? You aren't going to listen, anyone else who has even two neurons to rub together should just read this. https://xkcd.com/1732/ If you think that will not impact agriculture massively, well, no convincing you I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Arkane posted:How do you square this gloomy prediction with the fact that the Earth has warmed by a modicum amount in the past 30 years, and yet quality of life has increased an absurd amount across the globe in that time period? And that, worldwide, on average, governments have become more democratic over that time-span? I bet the lobsters feel pretty good when the pot just starts warming up. Seriously, this is specious and you can't expect it to be convincing. Also bad news international cat-botherers: Nature posted:The carbon footprint of global tourism That's kind of a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
I guess my question is why you think moving to a farm would be some devastating life decision? He's not throwing away his life savings, he's going to Wales to farm with a family member. If the world doesn't go to poo poo, he can move back. I mean, maybe he's dropping a PhD program in the last year or abandoning a family, but moving to a farm and living that lifestyle is not some kind of suicidal life decision. Where's the harm exactly? Losing a few years on your resume for a bullshit job?
90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Some would argue that we do so at the expense of the planet. But this will be self-correcting, as it is already doing. I may not like you, but to be honest, I really hope you are right in this, that we will be able to turn this around in time.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Neat talk on geoengineering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb0etxTQ434
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I agree that Trump shows that populism can hijack a democracy and that when things like this happen, democracy declines....but I think it's sort of masking the more important point that the trajectory of the world is bending, in fits and starts, towards more freedom and better outcomes. Man, I remember the last time Europe self-corrected out of fascism. It took a decade or so, but oh boy, what a wild decade that was!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
What is with this constant refrain of 'the westerners will be OK'? One third of Americans live in poverty or near-poverty *today*, and another third are pretty drat precarious as-is. Poor people were tossed to the wolves in the wholly human-constructed crisis of 2008 - why the gently caress won't they be again when the situation is far more dire and unescapable?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I bet the lobsters feel pretty good when the pot just starts warming up. Seriously, this is specious and you can't expect it to be convincing. I suppose the basic point is that we're becoming wealthier and more advanced faster than we're feeling the ill effects of any impacts we are having on the climate. Carbon emissions are growing, but the global economy is growing much faster than carbon emissions, because we're decarbonizing. Your analogy is terrible, but perhaps emblematic of an alarmist's view of our economy. The lobster lacks self awareness and the tools to do anything. He sits there idly, unchanged as something terrible and irreversible befalls him. Are we sitting idly? No. Is something terrible and irreversible befalling us? Perhaps terrible, people disagree on the severity...irreversible, it depends, but mostly no. As to idleness: carbon emissions in the west have already peaked. The frontiers of technology are such that developing countries will be able to reach peak carbon far faster than the west, relative to GDP per capita. In line with that, a large majority of the new electricity generation that was installed last year across the globe was renewable. Did people expect that to be the case 10 years ago when they projected accelerating fossil fuel usage to match economic growth? And astride to that point of sitting idly, we continue to lower the (right now, very large) costs of removing carbon from the atmosphere, something that is becoming a more realistic solution on a time horizon of 10+ years. There are a dozen more things that can be talked about here. I think asking people to imagine the world in 2050 is a good exercise if they engage with it rigorously, and look at how the world has changed over the previous 10, 25, 50, 100 years. Anchoring yourself to the status quo and merely projecting it forward 30 years is just being dishonest with yourself. The sad thing is that people prescribe as the solution that we need to hinder growth or slow birth rates or exit the economy or halt emissions via severe coercion. And the marketing message of that prescription is to make a laundry list of death and misery that is sure to befall us if we don't take our medicine. And yet the world around you is becoming greener and richer and better by not doing that, or doing it with slight government coercion. And the scientific basis for death and misery befalling us in our future, already untenable when it became de rigueur a decade ago, becomes less tenable with each passing year. So perhaps there is some validity to the lobster analogy, because alarmists that are anchored to a dystopian future are mentally akin to a lobster in a pot. Just gradually unmooring themselves from reality. Hopefully some self-awareness will develop eventually... Arkane fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Arkane posted:halt emissions via severe coercion. oh so this is what denialists call a carbon tax these days Arkane posted:I think asking people to imagine the world in 2050 is a good exercise if they engage with it rigorously, and look at how the world has changed over the previous 10, 25, 50, 100 years. Anchoring yourself to the status quo and merely projecting it forward 30 years is just being dishonest with yourself. Arkane posted:How do you square this gloomy prediction with the fact that the Earth has warmed by a modicum amount in the past 30 years, and yet quality of life has increased an absurd amount across the globe in that time period? And that, worldwide, on average, governments have become more democratic over that time-span? 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
self unaware posted:oh so this is what denialists call a carbon tax these days What would your carbon tax - and the associated bureaucracy - do that is not already happening? Why would it be better? How would you reconcile the highly regressive nature of your carbon tax with whatever those goals are? Really easy to post a buzz word.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Arkane posted:What would your carbon tax - and the associated bureaucracy - do that is not already happening? Why would it be better? lol if you think I'm going to spend my time convincing a guy who calls taxation "government coercion" that a carbon tax is good policy i was just merely pointing out how much the language you use betrays your true viewpoints we get it, you're a libertarian, freedom is the only thing that's ever done anything good and as long as we have it nothing bad will happen. and because you're only a small brain libretarian in order to justify your own putrid existence of course you land on "actually the optimal amount of regulation is exactly what we have today. yes I have a seven figure net worth and am heavily invested in the market, why is that relevant?" 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
call to action posted:What is with this constant refrain of 'the westerners will be OK'? One third of Americans live in poverty or near-poverty *today*, and another third are pretty drat precarious as-is. Poor people were tossed to the wolves in the wholly human-constructed crisis of 2008 - why the gently caress won't they be again when the situation is far more dire and unescapable? Your assessment is correct. Look at the situation in Puerto Rico.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Arkane posted:How do you square this gloomy prediction with the fact that the Earth has warmed by a modicum amount in the past 30 years, and yet quality of life has increased an absurd amount across the globe in that time period? And that, worldwide, on average, governments have become more democratic over that time-span? A "modicum amount" is not supported by evidence. There has been a huge surge in warming - a surge that has itself been mitigated by aerosol cooling. A nominally democratic government is not the same as a democratic government. If the US was a democracy we'd have universal healthcare and federally legal marijuana, at the minimum.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Arkane posted:What would your carbon tax - and the associated bureaucracy - do that is not already happening? Why would it be better? Why not promote a carbon-credit-exchange plan as initially created by a lawyer in the Reagan Administration? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-political-history-of-cap-and-trade-34711212/ That's a capitalist solution that should fit your libertarian mindset. Or is the "Tragedy of the Commons" just something we have to live with for FREEDOM? Letting corporations "privatize the profits and socialize the costs?"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
So I initially didn't get this, but I think you are misreading status quo. In the year 1985, we emitted about 18 Gt of CO2 and world GDP was about 12.5 trillion, a ratio of .7 trillion per gigaton. In 2000, we emitted around 23 Gt of CO2 and world GDP was 33.5 trillion, a ratio of 1.5 trillion per gigaton. In 2017 , the world GDP was ~78 trillion, and there were 32.5 Gt of CO2 emitted, 2.4 trillion per gigaton. We're using less and less carbon as a component of how wealthy the world is, and the ratio of how wealthy the world is to the amount of carbon emits has changed dramatically over time. The RCP 8.5 "alarmist" pathway that has us shooting past 2C of warming also has us emitting 70 Gt of carbon a year in 2050 (and 100 Gt of carbon a year in 2100). This is "status quo" thinking of the mix of wealth to carbon emissions staying relatively the same, conditioned on the assumption that in order to grow the economy, we need to grow emissions. That they are coupled. In reality, though, it is very possible that we're *VERY* close to peak carbon emissions, that economic growth and emissions growth will completely decouple:  (2017 was 32.5)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Hey, Arkane just admitted there's no evidence that carbon emissions and economic growth can or will decouple! Progress!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
self unaware posted:lol if you think I'm going to spend my time convincing a guy who calls taxation "government coercion" that a carbon tax is good policy Your posts in this thread are mostly just one-liners devoid of substance and very short on facts, so if you did start engaging, that would be a large shift in behavior. Might even force you to assess your own beliefs! Anyway, we can test the hypothesis about whether a legislative remedy was or is appropriate. Let's look at the 2009 cap & trade bill that made it out of the House. The goal was a 17% emissions reduction (from 2005) by 2020, and 20% nationwide electricity generation from renewables by 2020. We're going to either meet or come very close to those goals, and the legislation was not passed. What you just posted, a carbon tax, would probably have similar goals (with the added twist of being regressive). But one wonders, in light of what is happening, why a legislative remedy is appropriate at all? The US is moving rapidly away from carbon, even as our economy flourishes. We can't very well create laws for China or India. So what would be the point of what you are suggesting? Arkane fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 19:27
|
|