|
What's better for the environment? A man who showers regularly or a man who showers regularly and also takes transcontinental flights?
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:“smell bad and take cold showers" I’m already half on board with this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why has this thread never had long discussions about showers then or refrigeration? Is it just magically luck the things people randomly decided need banning are the exact same categories people always tried to police and the other neural ones go ignored? JFC dude you've got to lay off of this weird persecution complex. I'd wager most people that post about topics you dislike in this thread are doing so because they feel climate change is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed on multiple fronts, and they feel like I do that just building a bunch of nuclear plants won't come fast enough or go far enough to prevent massive human suffering. The thing is, we as a species are clearly not living within our means, and part of the problem is that we don't factor in the true cost of our modern lifestyles. Much like a diabetic needs to lay off the junkfood and someone facing bankruptcy should rethink that next Ferrari purchase, humanity needs to find a way to learn to live with something other than the current "ideal" that is based on endless voracious consumption. I loving love cheeseburgers and think it would be rad as hell to fly around the world multiple times a year. But I've come to accept that we're not going to reverse course unless we build nuke/solar/wind plants AND develop better cc technology AND rework our economic models so the damage carbon intensive industries like transportation is reflected in their prices AND find humane ways to incentivise eating less meat/having less kids/wasting less water/taking less hot showers or whatever/probably a hundred other things. You get a lot of poo poo from people here, mainly because you've gone on for 100 pages essentially saying that any sacrifices to your current lifestyle is too high a price to pay to save the future of humanity. This is kind of terrifying to those of us who feel a collective tightening of our belts is necessary, because if we can't convince one educated liberal of this then how is there any hope of getting through to the millions of retarded man-babies that keep electing fatter, dumber man-babies to positions of power? Mazzagatti2Hotty fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Aug 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Mandatory shower limiters
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
I still think we could fix this with a lot of science and nuclear energy activism and funding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:You get a lot of poo poo from people here, mainly because you've gone on for 100 pages essentially saying that any sacrifices to your current lifestyle is too high a price to pay to save the future of humanity. It's not simply that the price is "too high" it's the fixation on weird pound foolish/pennywise solutions. Where people demand high sacrifices for extremely small gains due to weird moralized priorities. Where the politicization of climate change feels like it's gone both directions to the point it feels frustrating that the clearly right side seems like it only wants to talk about weird fanfiction apocalypses and austerity based lifestyle changes that absolutely do not match up with the actual carbon sources in any particular way. When people die from this the lionshare of the blame is going to be on the actual denialists, but future people are not going to be thanking the people that told misinformation about the effects of climate change (in the form of weird a-scientific apocalypse fiction) or thank people that tried to appropriate climate change to push their pet causes against their weird grudges totally out of scale with what actually is the actual sources of human made carbon. And made the denialists seem to have a better case than if everyone just stuck to the script of what is actually verifiably real and saved the demands for big change for things that would have big effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's not simply that the price is "too high" it's the fixation on weird pound foolish/pennywise solutions. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Abandon the idea that [cost efficiency is] a meaningful way to predict what will happen or even that anyone exists in a position to even decide and implement a one at a time directive for what all humans work on in what order. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Aug 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:You can't argue people here are bad at evaluating cost efficiencies and also argue we should abandon the concept of it. Yes? People generally not prioritizing well is exactly why you shouldn’t rely on proper order priorities from people. We have numbers on this stuff to go by, peoples gut feelings are all wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's not simply that the price is "too high" it's the fixation on weird pound foolish/pennywise solutions. Where people demand high sacrifices for extremely small gains due to weird moralized priorities. What you don't get is no one is prioritizing marginal carbon reductions over primary targets like overhauling the power grid. The latter is so obviously needed it goes without saying in a thread with this kind of audience. Where you're running into opposition is from people who believe we need to save up as many 'pennies' and 'pounds' as we can to meet our carbon 'budget'. At this point we can't afford to take any significant source of emissions off the table just because it's some goon's sacred cow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
I agree with the cat guy that there's no point in moralizing the problem at an individual level, especially since literally everyone here probably has a sizable carbon footprint compared to most of the world's population, so any kind of moralizing will always be hypocritical and as a result, not very convincing. I think of it more like this: individual changes won't change the outcome, and my personal habits are insignificant, but do you really want to be a part of the phenomenon that's destroying the world? When you're older and the results will be felt, do you really want to look back knowing that you contributed even in a miniscule way and did nothing to prevent it? That seems like a better motivator than listening to an angry person telling you not to do things. And yeah I also don't think the apocalyptic vision stuff will do any good. Words like "hellscape" or "hellhole" or "wasteland" for what the world will be like make it harder to care about it and lead to fatalism. Even if the equator will become ininhabitable or some horrible thing like that, we must somehow find a way to love and care about that world in a way that matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
I don't fly so I don't feel it's hypocritical to say we should reduce unnecessary flights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I agree with the cat guy that there's no point in moralizing the problem at an individual level That's a straw man he invented to make the rest of the thread sound silly. He's the only one who's been talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 11:25
|
|
|
you people are out of control. stop obsessing over your potential deaths and devote your life, in the now, which for most of us is quite comfortable and climate-controlled, to assisting the miracle creatures that are bound by fate to share this rock with our doomed stupid species. idiots. fools. trash
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 12:55
|
|
|
the fact that most of you, statistically speaking, live within six hours' drive of a wolf and are yet completely uninterested in meeting, bonding and communicating with that wolf makes me fear for your prospects in this great burning judgment that has come upon the earth
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
Wolves are wild animals that are better off well the gently caress away from random suburbanites looking to find themselves through new-age "communion with nature" crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Wolves are wild animals that are better off well the gently caress away from random suburbanites looking to find themselves through new-age "communion with nature" crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
you are literally just a chimp that can count to fifty. any barriers between you and a wolf are just put there by society
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
i understand the urge to give in to despair, but remember this: every kind man is an oasis
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
befriend a coyote. they know more about the desert than you ever will (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
And biology. And ecology. You're trying to impose your moral values on some poor animal that wants nothing to do with you, just to satisfy your loving ego. Managing and preserving Earth's ecosystems is a practical matter for the sake of our species well-being, and the best way is to stay the gently caress away from it when it comes to our frivolous pursuits. Driving 6 hours to go try and gently caress with a wolf is the same kind of toxic behavior as the wealthy CEO who charters a flight to northern Canada to nab himself some polar bear pelts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Where you're running into opposition is from people who believe we need to save up as many 'pennies' and 'pounds' as we can to meet our carbon 'budget'. But literally everything is a "penny", if you decide you hate harry potter you look up the carbon output to print a book and multiple it by the 500 million sales and now you can declare reading harry potter an environmental sin. Why just harry potter? Why not other books? Because you never need to mention any of the social changes you don't want to make. Nearly everything generating co2 to do or make means you can just look at any behavior and product and declare it part of the problem totally selectively then yell "every little bit helps" when it's noticed that whatever thing picked to be policed isn't actually a significant source of global co2. At some point when the goal becomes trying to make widespread social changes over certain random sub 1% changes it just starts to look like the social change was the person's goal, and the fraction of the 1% of global output of carbon is the excuse they leached onto for why you have to listen to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
Eliminating beef from our diets would reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions by what, 3-4%? Clearly a nothingburger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Eliminating beef from our diets would reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions by what, 3-4%? Clearly a nothingburger. If they eliminated it and replaced the meals with nothing or some other zero carbon food globally forever and also stopped eating any product with cheese or milk in it so they could get the cow population to actual zero.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If they eliminated it and replaced the meals with nothing or some other zero carbon food globally forever and also stopped eating any product with cheese or milk in it so they could get the cow population to actual zero. Pray tell, how much do you think raising bovines contributes to human carbon emissions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
coal, not cows, is the problem. methane is easily neutralised and it won't be a long-term issue once the enemies of the forest are dead. we'll have less beef in the future but that's because of drought, not greenhouse gases
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
How much carbon is emitted by a pack of
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But literally everything is a "penny", if you decide you hate harry potter you look up the carbon output to print a book and multiple it by the 500 million sales and now you can declare reading harry potter an environmental sin. Why just harry potter? Why not other books? Because you never need to mention any of the social changes you don't want to make. Nearly everything generating co2 to do or make means you can just look at any behavior and product and declare it part of the problem totally selectively then yell "every little bit helps" when it's noticed that whatever thing picked to be policed isn't actually a significant source of global co2. At some point when the goal becomes trying to make widespread social changes over certain random sub 1% changes it just starts to look like the social change was the person's goal, and the fraction of the 1% of global output of carbon is the excuse they leached onto for why you have to listen to them. Look man I don't want to limit burgers for selfish reasons but the beef industry is pretty widely recognized as a resource intensive major source of emissions that can't be easily fixed by putting up a bunch of solar panels. It's not a moral thing for me beyond it bein profoundly immoral to accept zero changes given the magnitude of the problems we're facing. And hey I'm not saying we should ban reading or anything but if there's ways to increase efficiency there then sure let's look into it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:"gently caress the animals! how will i survive?" if this is how you feel, you won't survive. you'll never survive good
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:How much carbon is emitted by a pack of
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
I can't see ooccs posts, but based on what is quoted he's trying to argue that 1% improvements aren't huge Like, improve ten small 1% things in a decade and you've significantly diminished the sequestration burden on our children's families I'm still waiting for that substantive evidence that the thread is actually penny-foolish with respect to ignoring and discrediting the most significant opportunities for green revolution and that it's not just a strawman you've been carrying around in the back of your head like a massochistic Jesus easter roleplayer dragging his goddamn cross in September wait, no I'm not, because your strawman is absolute horseshit, it has always been horseshit, you've been told for ages itt you're literally reading everything wrong, and you can gently caress off Jesus Christ even arkane at least recognized that the thread focused on green energy above all else. He was on some days afraid of emitting too little CO2. You may be better at understanding climate science than Arkane, but you're no better at reading and comprehending the god damned thread in good faith than he.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm still waiting for that substantive evidence that the thread is actually penny-foolish with respect to ignoring and discrediting the most significant opportunities for green revolution Again, I am sure in some abstract way everyone signs off on some vague "yeah yeah, fix coal, I don't know, power something something, whatever do that" but it seems really obvious for some people paying lip service to that is something you just do in passing so you can get to the real meat: micromanaging other people's personal lives. Again, like the people that come up with wacky fictional apocalypse stories and then spread them as misinformation these people will never discredit actual climate change, but they will discredit it in the eyes of people that otherwise could have been convinced and they help make it a politicized issue instead of a factual issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
So is your position that we shouldn't address emissions in some areas because a minority of people who agree it should be done may want to do it for the wrong reasons?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
That sounds like political grudgekeeping go trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
I sympathize with your position, children of the future, I really do, but you need to understand. Some poster somewhere didn't add to every post a disclaimer will all necessary annotation on mutually understood yet unmentioned higher-priority carbon reform measures and thus may have at any time possibly fit into what I framed as the right thing for the wrong reasons Now there was this cat at mcmurdo back when the ice still went out that far year round,
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Do you guys ever have this nagging sense of doom that permeates all other social and political views? I always find myself thinking ‘all this progress on this topic or issue will mean gently caress all when we are living in a mad max hellscape in a century.’ My mind keeps circling around to this: Do tomorrow's worst-case scenarios warrant 'eco-authoritarianism' today? Will our ancestors think we should've been violently agitating already? For punitive carbon taxes, bans on certain goods and services, elimination of beef subsidies, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Change has always started and ended with citizen action. If you got a group of people together and started buying less red meat it will cascade into more and more people not buying as much red meat. Thats literally how social animals like us operate. Go out and participate in a community garden instead of driving to a grocery store. Become active in your local government and make appointments with your city council so they have to talk to you face to face. Large scale change always starts small. I am getting a group of people together to get rid of the kudzu growing in our parks. We work 4 hours on the weekends getting rid of this poo poo and planting trees and groundcover plants. People come by and ask us what we are doing and we are giving out contact info and some of those randos are showing up to help now. Stop with the nihilistic bullshit and start doing stuff to help. Our next project is an river cleanup initiative for the James River and planting trees all along the river. We are also doing a recycle drive for the city where you bring all your poo poo and we sort it into bins and take it to the recycling plant. Edit: I started this group a month ago btw. We have 50 active members
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Will our ancestors think we should've been violently agitating already? For punitive carbon taxes, bans on certain goods and services, elimination of beef subsidies, etc. I mean, yeah? Beef subsidies and bans on certain goods and services are like no brainers despite the political pushback we might see. Oil subsidies too. We have the money and logistical structures to subsidize whatever tech we want and what do we spend it on? Bovine fart machines and oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
If we even have ancestors who will be educated enough to know what we were up to right now 2-300 years in the future they will look upon us as horrific and terrifying wastrels and we will probably all be as vilified as say slave owners of the Antebellum period. It's more likely that our heinous lack of action wrt to climate change will be forgotten or glossed over by people too embarrassed to admit our complicity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
It's kind of neat to be living in the "decadent, declining empire" phase of history if you think about it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
yes yes yes we need to deal with meat but holy gently caress is it wierd how its everyones #1 go to example START WITH CARS SOLVE CARS
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 20:22
|
|