|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:So you don't count your transportation and electric bill as consumer choices? Because those are the two biggest areas we're talking about when we talk about consumer reductions of carbon footprints. I absolutely do not count the power plant I get power from any sort of consumer choice. Nor do I count getting nuclear power some sort of sacrifice over getting coal power.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Ol etty Ettienne from France is not making any sacrifice towards climate change. Therefore no one is or ever has made sacrifice in France to construct its society. Therefore. I won't make any sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
You are never going to get people to voluntarily impoverish themselves to serve climate policy. End of story. Nor is it necessary to do so. Fossil power plants can be replaced with renewables and nuclear power, gasoline- and diesel- fueled vehicles can be replaced with EVs, beef can be replaced with imitation meat. That's how real-world decarbonization is going to proceed, whether you like it or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:Ol etty Ettienne from France is not making any sacrifice towards climate change. Therefore no one is or ever has made sacrifice in France to construct its society. Therefore. I won't make any sacrifice. Life in France is modern and first world and generates less than 1/3rd the carbon and sounds absolutely nothing like the grim sad spartan life this thread constantly proscribes as the only way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You are never going to get people to voluntarily impoverish themselves to serve climate policy. End of story. Nor is it necessary to do so. Fossil power plants can be replaced with renewables and nuclear power, gasoline- and diesel- fueled vehicles can be replaced with EVs, beef can be replaced with imitation meat. That's how real-world decarbonization is going to proceed, whether you like it or not. And what would motivate such replacements?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Liberalism, of course
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:And what would motivate such replacements? What do you mean by motivate? Like why would we do that? To reduce carbon emissions, obviously. Or do you mean how would we accomplish it? The answer is really that you'll have to get the government involved, at least if you want it to happen on a fast-enough timescale. Massive state intervention made France's transition to clean nuclear power possible, and you had similar in a transition to majority-renewable in Denmark, as well as the (less successful) Energiewende renewables program in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Life in France is modern and first world and generates less than 1/3rd the carbon and sounds absolutely nothing like the grim sad spartan life this thread constantly proscribes as the only way. I think most people in the united states would trade the entire french republic for a year-long tax cut or a coupon for steak at the supermarket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:And what would motivate such replacements? Wishes to solve the actual problem at the source that correctly identified correct solutions instead of weird monastic plans to simply ask everyone to permanently behave counter to their interests in ways that don't even have that much benifit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:brb let me bike 12 miles to work in 100 degree weather 100ºF? Luxury! https://www.strava.com/activities/1685362978 112ºF Get used to the new-normal. (Note: In office casual attire, on a folding bike, to the train afterwards).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:What do you mean by motivate? Like why would we do that? To reduce carbon emissions, obviously. Or do you mean how would we accomplish it? The answer is really that you'll have to get the government involved, at least if you want it to happen on a fast-enough timescale. Massive state intervention made France's transition to clean nuclear power possible, and you had similar in a transition to majority-renewable in Denmark, as well as the (less successful) Energiewende renewables program in Germany. Okay, yeah I see it now: instead of voluntarily impoverishing ourselves for the sake of climate policy, what we've got to do is muster up the political will to implement policies that will impoverish us, for the sake of the climate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Okay, yeah I see it now: instead of voluntarily impoverishing ourselves for the sake of climate policy, what we've got to do is muster up the political will to implement policies that will impoverish us, for the sake of the climate. That is clearly not what I'm saying. I'm holding up France as a model, and they're hardly impoverished, and neither are the other two countries I mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
I've been doing a little reading on carbon sequestration the last few days and basalt, as was mentioned a couple pages back, keeps getting brought up a lot. Just how effective is crushed basalt at removing CO2? If I bought a 100kg bag of it and spread it around outside would it absorb 100kg of carbon? Also I planted a tree today! Hooray for trees!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:I've been doing a little reading on carbon sequestration the last few days and basalt, as was mentioned a couple pages back, keeps getting brought up a lot. Just how effective is crushed basalt at removing CO2? As was already stated, it's not effective enough to even overcome the CO2 produced from the transportation of it from where it was mined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:As was already stated, it's not effective enough to even overcome the CO2 produced from the transportation of it from where it was mined. Nobody gave numbers though and I was wondering just what the ratios are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That is clearly not what I'm saying. I'm holding up France as a model, and they're hardly impoverished, and neither are the other two countries I mentioned. Then *what* are you saying? Are fossil fuel plants and vehicles being replaced because the alternatives are more economical, or are they being replaced because people want to save the planet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Okay, yeah I see it now: instead of voluntarily impoverishing ourselves for the sake of climate policy, what we've got to do is muster up the political will to implement policies that will impoverish us, for the sake of the climate. In what way are people in france "impoverished"? If someone builds you a train system not owning a car is nothing, it's better to not own a car. If you simply choose yourself to not own a car and live somewhere with no transport system you have just hurt your quality of life seriously with very very little environmental impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:I've been doing a little reading on carbon sequestration the last few days and basalt, as was mentioned a couple pages back, keeps getting brought up a lot. Just how effective is crushed basalt at removing CO2? It depends on a lot of factors. A new study came out on this recently and there's been several in the previous months as well, because for whatever reason land-based enhanced weathering is hot right now. You wouldn't just spread crushed basalt randomly; most proposals place it on cropland. Nor would you necessarily want to use basalt. This study fines a maximum of 5 GtC/year of sequestration from basalt use, compared with 95 GtC/year for dunite. Finally, I can't tell you exactly how much a given application is going to sequester, because the amount depends on energy input, (i.e. the ground heating up in the hot sun). You're most likely living in a temperate region like the US or Europe where there'll be less energy going into the ground which means less sequestration. The whole business is still in the theoretical stage, and these are just estimates, so I would stick to planting trees for now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I absolutely do not count the power plant I get power from any sort of consumer choice. No do I. It's going to take political action following a huge step leftward and green-ward to create a political climate unafraid to tell fossil fuel lobbies where to stuff it as that get shut down in favor of renewables over baseload nuclear. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Nor do I count getting nuclear power some sort of sacrifice over getting coal power. Well that makes it easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Well that makes it easy. It doesn't make it easy. But it's not like if something is hard you should just make up some pretend solution that doesn't even help and do that instead. And if you do do that you should absolutely not lie to people and try and convince them you are "helping" with your fake thing. There are real solutions and we know what they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Also, lol at the attempt last page to frame the banning of DDT as following the following recipe: 1) Silent spring is published amongst other visible factors producing clear need for regulation 3) Political action is taken You don't get to rewrite history
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Then *what* are you saying? Are fossil fuel plants and vehicles being replaced because the alternatives are more economical, or are they being replaced because people want to save the planet? I can tell you're confused about what I'm saying, and I'm beginning to expect you're just too dull to get it. I've never claimed that emissions reduction will happen automatically because it's more economical. In fact I said the exact opposite. The point is that demanding individuals practice voluntary austerity is a non-starter. You will need an viable political program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You will need an viable political program. Right, the political program that sprouts out of the ground fully formed and ready to swing from day 1 Guy, somehow you are abjectly refusing to connect the dots on how change starts, and it'sind boggling
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Also, lol at the attempt last page to frame the banning of DDT as following the following recipe: Nobody said environmental movements didn't matter. The only time I mentioned them was to say that they're useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Nobody wants a long-term austerity movement any more than college students sitting in at racist restaurants wanted long-term lifestyles of food industry interruption
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
It's about visibility, which is the only power we have in America outside our tiny, gerrymandered votes and going postal
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I can tell you're confused about what I'm saying, and I'm beginning to expect you're just too dull to get it. I've never claimed that emissions reduction will happen automatically because it's more economical. In fact I said the exact opposite. The point is that demanding individuals practice voluntary austerity is a non-starter. You will need an viable political program. No, no, no need to insult my intelligence; I'm just trying to make sure we're on the same page. That I'm not accidentally misrepresenting you. Then, what you're saying is, a viable political program is only that which
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Right, the political program that sprouts out of the ground fully formed and ready to swing from day 1 We had someone come in here and ask how to fix the problem and every response was some combination of not having any kids, eating less meat and never travelling. The problem isn't that environmentalists haven't had time to come up with policy—we've all known about global warming since James Hansen delivered his congressional address in 1988. The problem is that their solutions are mostly bunk and entirely focused on lifestyle choices over actually replacing the sources of carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Alternately we can try to find some ex-superpower, has-been imperialist state to sponsor our domestic green movement with sophisticated overton forcing campaigns, but right now the only one seems interested in using Republicans to launder money and tie-up international political alliances
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:We had someone come in here and ask how to fix the problem and every response was some combination of not having any kids, eating less meat and never travelling. The problem isn't that environmentalists haven't had time to come up with policy—we've all known about global warming since James Hansen delivered his congressional address in 1988. The problem is that their solutions are mostly bunk and entirely focused on lifestyle choices over actually replacing the sources of carbon emissions. Most if not all of these were suggested in the context of contributing to a political movement As a matter of fact, many posters ignored the personal austerity aspect and went straight to "get involved politically," myself included
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:No, no, no need to insult my intelligence; I'm just trying to make sure we're on the same page. That I'm not accidentally misrepresenting you. I don't think this is zero-sum. You can replace fossil fuels with nuclear power and still have a vibrant, growing economy. There might be some growing pains and up-front costs that have to be paid, but in the long run we can maintain a relatively prosperous industrial system and even increase it. But if your solution is about decreasing consumption rather than decarbonization, then you are necessarily talking about permanent austerity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Most if not all of these were suggested in the context of contributing to a political movement Okay. You can pretend there's no problem if you want. Keep hoping that one day this nonsense is going to coalesce into a real solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:But if your solution is about decreasing consumption rather than decarbonization, then you are necessarily talking about permanent austerity. Potato Salad posted:Nobody wants a long-term austerity movement
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think this is zero-sum. You can replace fossil fuels with nuclear power and still have a vibrant, growing economy. There might be some growing pains and up-front costs that have to be paid, but in the long run we can maintain a relatively prosperous industrial system and even increase it. But if your solution is about decreasing consumption rather than decarbonization, then you are necessarily talking about permanent austerity. Oh, ok. I admit 'impoverishing' might've been a loaded word and an exaggeration in the context of your examples, but then, so that's a yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Really? Have you read Greenpeace's carbon mitigation scenario? It's entirely premised on long-term, permanent reductions in energy consumption to a fraction of the rate we use currently. And that's globally, so I guess those poor Indians and Africans with no electricity are just boned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I absolutely do not count the power plant I get power from any sort of consumer choice. Nor do I count getting nuclear power some sort of sacrifice over getting coal power. I don't know, I elect to pay a 100% renewable provider for my power instead of just getting it from coal plants. They just sent me a letter saying they're dropping their prices by 12% because generation is getting cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Oh, ok. I admit 'impoverishing' might've been a loaded word and an exaggeration in the context of your examples, but then, so that's a yes? I have no problem with taxing people, (especially rich people), to pay for decarbonization, if that's what you're asking. This is entirely different from the solutions offered earlier, which are all about not having kids or traveling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Keep hoping that one day this nonsense is going to coalesce into a real solution. I'm not the guy desperately threatened or something by the notion that political change follows political action. How do you think our lawmakers function as high level? Do you think a bunch of old men enter a big room, read a bunch of literature, then hash out options best supported by science and real world example. Buddy, if that's how it went down, we'd have single payer healthcare or price regulation at minimum, and we'd be increasing as opposed to decreasing funding for education. Political change. Follows. Political action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Really? Have you read Greenpeace's carbon mitigation scenario? It's entirely premised on long-term, permanent reductions in energy consumption to a fraction of the rate we use currently. And that's globally, so I guess those poor Indians and Africans with no electricity are just boned. lol Greenpeace as a strawman Reaching like that isn't exactly flattering to your argument
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm not the guy desperately threatened or something by the notion that political change follows political action. Being a sanctimonious jackoff demanded that everyone "make sacrifices" (while usually refusing to make any oneself), telling them they have to stop having kids, this is not political action. It is obnoxious noise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:48
|
|