Owlofcreamcheese posted:

You guys have insulted me for like a year (I'm gonna pet a german cat in a few weeks!) and it hasn't worked, because personal consumption still isn't anything but a distraction and sad sack demands of penance based ecofacism still aren't what is needed. A country like france still has like 1/3rd the per capita carbon footprint and did so by sensible application of nuclear power and a focus on trains that is reasonable where applicable without any weird train fetishism and reasonably dense cities without extreme demands of vengeance against suburban or rural people.

Climate change is a technical problem with technical solutions and demands people try to stray from finding real solutions with weird austerity based ones that clearly are never going to work so that you can be all smug when they obviously never work are dumb. The solution to global warming is nuclear power, fusion power, better batteries, electric cars, better trains, better solar panels, actually researched and advocated for. Not lame demands of global permanent austerity and being miserable so you can feel superior for cutting your footprint .0001%.

StabbinHobo posted:

since your opening line is bullshit i didn't bother reading past it. feel free to click the little question mark icon below my avatar to correct yourself.

there is no reason to humor you with reading your wall of text if you're going to not read the thread and then lie about what you did read.

Doorknob Slobber posted:

Also I think its great that instead of actually having an argument all you can really do is make personal attacks. I'm not going to sit with you and quibble about all the things you or I individually do like some stupid loving carbon footprint badge because that is bait dude

Obama posted:

Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quad­rupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some. . . . In fact, the problem . . . is that we’re actually producing so much oil and gas . . . that we don’t have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it where it needs to go.

Doorknob Slobber posted:

I'm sorry you aren't willing to actually talk about solutions.

quote:

How has voting democrat and encouraging people to not have children gone so far in the past ~40 years since climate change was a thing people have been talking about by the way? Its hard for me to forget that we just had a democrat as a president and the democrats had legislative control and they were still 99% talk in terms of stopping climate change. Instead
and the US became the top producer of oil in the world. But please, vote democrats because they totally will fix climate change instead of make it worse.

Doorknob Slobber posted:

telling people to not have children because we can solve climate change that way is pretty much equal to that and its what you and a bunch of posters in this thread keep saying. You will never, ever convince enough people to stop having children to make a real impact. It will literally never happen. And from the standpoint of the state you're going full fascism to legislate who gets to have babies and who doesn't so goooooooooood luck. In the end the only people who benefit from climate change 'activists' or whatever you want to call people doing passive poo poo like not doing something are quiverfull religious chuds who will repopulate the world with homeschooled shithead climate deniers.

There's a reason why most of the time when people talk about individual footprint emissions its literally the same five CNN/MSNBC talking points and there's a reason the media pushes those things so hard instead of big sweeping ideas that might actually save us in the very short period of time we have left. Its also why you don't hear people saying to just stop buying new poo poo every year when your current poo poo is fine. Last I checked industry/manufacturing was somewhere between 1/4th or 1/5th of emissions which is about on par to agriculture and more than transpo. But stopping the purchasing of new poo poo is probably also one of the most threatening things to our current power structure.

Again I'll talk about some of things that I think probably would make a reasonable impact and have a lasting meaningful effect, at least far more than encouraging people to not have children. Specifically, rebuilding our transportation systems to move away from privately owned vehicles and to a large fleet of publicly owned shared electric vehicles(no more private vehicles on public roads!), encouraging people to move into more dense areas(stop building single family homes on every square inch of land and a massive buyback program for SFH, I think its 50-80 tons per home), transitioning into nuclear and solar power, some kind of rules for manufacturing of goods to be durable and last longer. The state has the means and technology to make all those things happen in <12 years, but they won't because they have no interest in solving climate change or fixing anything because the way it is now benefits them and their donors far too much and they'll all be dead before it matters to them.

Step one pretty much has to be smash the state, step two has to be re-organizing the way almost everything works.

Also I think its great that instead of actually having an argument all you can really do is make personal attacks. I'm not going to sit with you and quibble about all the things you or I individually do like some stupid loving carbon footprint badge because that is bait dude

StabbinHobo posted:

if you honestly can't wrap your brain around the difference at the EPA between the obama administration and the trump administration then you are simply broken mentally. you do not seem to be capable of modeling non-binary things.

StabbinHobo posted:

children:
binary-pro: children are great, the future, if you aren't pro-children you're anti-human and evil
binary-con: all future modeling is based on future consumption, children are those future consumers and therefore the primary driver of future consumption, therefore have zero children

ACTUAL loving THING I HAVE ADVOCATED:
- try to have 1 or 2 kids instead of 2 or 3
- support better education and healthcare for the poor especially women

flying:
binary-pro: seeing the world is one of lifes great pleasures and being worldly is neoliberal nirvana. we are all connected by jet engines and to regress would be anti-global-civilization
binary-con: after children there is no greater one single thing you can do that causes more acute harm to the climate, flying is haram

ACTUAL loving THING I HAVE ADVOCATED:
try not to fly more than one intercontinental round trip every few years

meat:
binary-pro: brisket
binary-con: the land use aspect of beef, let alone the methane, make it uniquely terrible. fisheries are almost all in complete collapse.

ACTUAL loving THING I HAVE ADVOCATED:
try to chose the chicken based option instead of the beef based one whenever you have the choice

Trabisnikof posted:

None of this matters when the person you're talking to just wants to feel superior because they've "wisely" chosen nihilism.

They've decided all action is either insufficient or impossible so any action anyone advocates for is instantly discredited since it must be one of the two.

StabbinHobo posted:

owls such a pro tier shitposter he can almost pull of "my jet fuel is not a problem because france's electricity is nuclear"

Conspiratiorist posted:

How about we carbon tax jet fuel? People will want to fly of course, so that should stimulate development of cleaner, more cost-effective flight methods.

That's a good solution, right OOCC?

Conspiratiorist posted:

How about we carbon tax jet fuel? People will want to fly of course, so that should stimulate development of cleaner, more cost-effective flight methods.

That's a good solution, right OOCC?

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Yeah, I absolutely support stuff like that. The free market isn't going to just magically fix this, even if solutions exist. The government does need to step in for these things. But any one thing like a carbon tax is just going to be one tool, it's not going to be THE solution. And would suck if you try to make it be.

Like one realistic path forward for planes is the US military funds biofuel (because they are doing that) until it's reasonably good at a technological level, then subsidies to research that get that to mass production and normal human prices instead of military prices then an increasing tax on jet fuel stops everyone from dragging their feet on switching. Then eventually it just being the normal kind of fuel. Something like that is realistic and real steps towards a real fix that will last forever. If the idea of a carbon tax is just say "every flight is 9 million dollars, har har har" then that isn't really good and that sort of carbon tax is dumb and would never get passed into law, be supported by anyone, or meaningfully help anyone.

Like everyone complained about the transition off incandescent bulbs but it was ultimately a pretty good model. Of pushing and pushing to make alternatives more and more reasonable with tax credits and research funding and rising efficiency standards and whatever, then the final hard cut off at the end once they became a real alternative.

sitchensis posted:

It would be a great solution if old people weren't hell bent on taking us all to the grave with then.

https://twitter.com/coinjar12/status/1048380629199417349

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

MiddleOne posted:

Okay buddy say it with us here:

'It's no longer the 80's and the time for an incremental solution to climate change has passed'

StabbinHobo posted:

you see, if you actually engage with the things i've said, rather than invent things i've not said, you'd realize how extremely *boringly* do-able this all is.

Science Daily posted:

The researchers used their extensive database of mammals, which includes not only species that still exist, but also the hundreds of species that lived in the recent past and became extinct as Homo sapiens spread across the globe. This meant that the researchers could study the full impact of our species on other mammals.

However, not all species have the same significance. Some extinct animals, such as the Australian leopard-like marsupial lion Thylacoleo, or the strange South American Macrauchenia (imagine a lama with an elephant trunk) were evolutionary distinct lineages and had only few close relatives. When these animals became extinct, they took whole branches of the evolutionary tree of life with them. We not only lost these species, we also lost the unique ecological functions and the millions of years of evolutionary history they represented.

"Large mammals, or megafauna, such as giant sloths and sabre-toothed tigers, which became extinct about 10,000 years ago, were highly evolutionarily distinct. Since they had few close relatives, their extinctions meant that entire branches of Earth's evolutionary tree were chopped off" says palaeontologist Matt Davis from Aarhus University, who led the study. And he adds:

"There are hundreds of species of shrew, so they can weather a few extinctions. There were only four species of sabre-toothed tiger; they all went extinct."

davebo posted:

Just think of how the rest of our lives' would be enriched if owl could try to pet a sabretooth tiger.

Conspiratiorist posted:

You don't even have to give up all meat, just beef, and you'll be making a large impact on your personal carbon footprint.

Nevermind all the other measures you can take that will help you adapt to the coming consumption-reducing economic hardships on your own terms, rather than during crisis mode.

Blue Star posted:

People have a hard on for telling ppl what to do. Banning plastic straws, telling them they can't have kids,etc. It always aimed at regular folks,too. Not corporations who are actually responsible. No, it's normal people that need to make all the sacrifices, not the actual corporations and powerful ppl. No plastic straws for you, even though plastic straws are a drop in the bucket.

Blue Star posted:

People have a hard on for telling ppl what to do. Banning plastic straws, telling them they can't have kids,etc. It always aimed at regular folks,too. Not corporations who are actually responsible. No, it's normal people that need to make all the sacrifices, not the actual corporations and powerful ppl. No plastic straws for you, even though plastic straws are a drop in the bucket.

Seriously, I remember someone in this thread getting FURIOUS because people were like "arresting people for plastic straws is dumb".

Conspiratiorist posted:

Nice plastic strawman.

Conspiratiorist posted:

Nice plastic strawman.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

It's never ever off the wall stuff like "water heaters take a ton of energy, everyone needs to use dry shampoo" even if that would help, because

Doorknob Slobber posted:

Realistically speaking wouldn't they just hire someone else who is doing the 20+ round trips on a flight? Did reducing your own individual footprint do a thing that actually made an impact on climate change?

Doorknob Slobber posted:

Biking to work is a privilege my friend and not feasible for many people for a variety of reasons, a few I can think of off the top of my head are, being able to live close enough to work, health, weather

I also think the notion that we can individually solve climate change is a trap, specifically spewed out by democratic donors in the mainstream media who literally want to actually do nothing and have demonstrated as such. I've done the less meat thing already to the point where I only eat meat once a week partly because meat is too expensive to make every night, I've been unemployed and poor for so long that my footprint is probably less than most people posting in this thread simply by virtue of not being able to afford otherwise.

Car Hater posted:

You can't land a battery-powered jetliner, biofuels are a waste of potentially sequestered carbon, planes die or we die, nbd.

twodot posted:

the vast majority of my power is generated by hydroelectric sources, so I don't spend much time worrying about consumer energy use?

qkkl posted:

Planes should be converted into gliders that have rocket engines fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The engines would fire to raise the plane's altitude and then turn off to let the plane glide, only turning on again once too much altitude is lost. The liquid hydrogen and oxygen would be produced using power from a source that emits low amounts of greenhouse gases.