|
FourLeaf posted:It's worth taking individual action even if it's barely a drop in the ocean in the effort to limit warming because in a shocking coincidence, many of those individual actions would also help make you more prepared, healthy, and self-sufficient in the face of increasing instability.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
FourLeaf posted:It's worth taking individual action even if it's barely a drop in the ocean in the effort to limit warming because in a shocking coincidence, many of those individual actions would also help make you more prepared, healthy, and self-sufficient in the face of increasing instability. In another shocking coincidence, the carbon saving option is also the more ethical option nine times out of ten (switching from beef to chicken is not, unfortunately)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
latent lunatic posted:Aren't like half of more of the posters in this thread depression survivors as well? I know that I sure as hell am, hence my lovely disposition. Kinda hard to be positive (even with pills) when you have been watching this shitshow for 30+ years on the sidelines. (my other mental illnesses certainly haven't helped either) Its not like I *want* to see the world burn and Humanity die out! (that would be the madness talking)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 09:14
|
|
|
You can just use syngas to make liquid hydrocarbon (solar) fuels from H and O cracked from water and co2 from the air. Hydrocarbon fuels are a nearly perfect energy transport medium (very dense, nonvolatile, non toxic, etc). Better than batteries in most ways. Just don't make them with fossil carbon. Sit a big solar or fusion rig out on a platform in the sea and tankers can pull up and fill up on kerosine made from air and seawater.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
Unormal posted:You can just use syngas to make liquid hydrocarbon (solar) fuels from H and O cracked from water and co2 from the air. Hydrocarbon fuels are a nearly perfect energy transport medium (very dense, nonvolatile, non toxic, etc). Better than batteries in most ways. As long as they are resilient to hurricanes
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
latent lunatic posted:Aren't like half of more of the posters in this thread depression survivors as well? I'm old but not THAT old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
humanity's greatest achievement being the killing of 90% of the species we came in contact with then seems like a decent legacy to me. we are like deadly radiation that other critters are stuck with! Beware of moderate levels of sentience, of scarcity driven evolution, of bipedal savanna primates, for these are not things that honor life. No highly esteemed creature is commemorated here. Nothing valued is here. What is here is dangerous and repulsive to life. The danger is in a particular species… it increases towards agriculture… the center of danger is here… of a particular complexity and ignorance, and around us. The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours. The danger is to the world, and it can kill. The form of the danger is an emanation of energy. The danger is unleashed only if you substantially evolve in this place. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:<words about hydro electric that fails to address whether marginal usage drives these numbers, but sure whatever>
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:humanity's greatest achievement being the killing of 90% of the species we came in contact with then seems like a decent legacy to me. we are like deadly radiation that other critters are stuck with! lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:So your complaint isn't about posters selectively offering solutions and is instead about posters being behind the research on what sort of contribution to greenhouse gases their local power production facilities is giving out? Like if I'm wrong, and I should be posting about water heaters then sure, it's possible I'm an idiot, but that also means you're wrong and that it's possible to think "Living a life that directly harms the environment less is a good thing to do" while also possibly being wrong about water heaters. The point is that a morality based view is really dumb, you weren't a good person when you happened to live near a hydroelectric dam and you didn't become a bad person when someone did a study and it turned out they release excess methane. It's all a bunch of morally neutral stuff. Trying to frame it as "you take hot showers, you are bad"/"actually I have hydroelectric I'm good"/"actually hydroelectric relatively recently was found to be much worse than thought you are bad" is stupid and it's all stuff out of your hands and nothing you are doing or control so it's nothing about your personal morality. There is a technical problem and there is answers how to make it better and worse and people can study things to figure them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The point is that a morality based view is really dumb, you weren't a good person when you happened to live near a hydroelectric dam and you didn't become a bad person when someone did a study and it turned out they release excess methane. It's all a bunch of morally neutral stuff. Trying to frame it as "you take hot showers, you are bad"/"actually I have hydroelectric I'm good"/"actually hydroelectric relatively recently was found to be much worse than thought you are bad" is stupid and it's all stuff out of your hands and nothing you are doing or control so it's nothing about your personal morality. There is a technical problem and there is answers how to make it better and worse and people can study things to figure them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Also as usual oooc gets the fundamental science wrong, it is the agricultural waste draining into the reservoir causing the methane production, it has nothing to do if there is hydro production on the reservoir. Very few reservoirs in the US were actually built for power production, so blaming the methane emissions from farm run off on the turbines at the end of a lake built for flood control or irrigation doesn't make sense. Of course, hydropower is increasingly an unreliable source of electricity since other demands on the water (or lack/excess thereof) are shifting when dams can release water away from "whats best for the grid" to "whats best for the watershed."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:If your position is "Actually people polluting is at worst morally neutral" you should really lead with that instead of "Why aren't people posting about water heaters!?". The point is that (some) people don't talk about water heaters because it's a meaningful change but not one that lets you micromanage people's food choices or who they have sex with or their interests or anything so some people don't have any interest in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Notice it's the exact same morality type stuff people that like dictating this stuff always like dictating, eating restrictions, sex stuff, moral behavior. It's never ever off the wall stuff like "water heaters take a ton of energy, everyone needs to use dry shampoo" Owlofcreamcheese posted:The point is that a morality based view is really dumb Owlofcreamcheese posted:The point is that (some) people don't talk about water heaters twodot fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Oct 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:"Here is a completely valid reason why talking about water heaters is a waste of time for people" I don't really get what you are saying? I am saying viewing pollution as a largely personal morality issue is ineffective and dumb, and will always go to ultra hyper micromanaging the same things those type of things always do regardless of what is or isn't an impact. Morality based views also fall apart for something like hydroelectric dams releasing methane because what choice did you make? what choice did you make when the research evolved? none of it is morality stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't really get what you are saying? Your posting in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
How convenient: the massively wasteful polluter-on-purpose finds that it’s dumb to make moral judgments in re: pollution. It is so much easier to believe that the invisible technical hand of progress will be able to undo all our problems, and that therefore we should avoid the dreaded austerity that is not taking several transcontinental flights a year for leisure
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
I just love how he continuously compares access to hot water to a luxury on par with leisure transcontinental flights, nevermind the rest of the convoluted strawman where he uses said comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:How convenient: the massively wasteful polluter-on-purpose finds that it’s dumb to make moral judgments in re: pollution. I think the extreme hyperfocus this thread has on my vacations is a super clear example of weird misdirection of attention based on bad metrics of what does or doesn't meaningfully contribute to climate change. Also why treat science like it's magic? It's not wishing magic will fix things, science and technology to fix things requires funding and advocating and support as much as anything to happen. Like I guess inventing new chemistry to make some new kind of battery for a better electric car means that every person doesn't get to be the hero at the center of the story where they personally saved the planet and everyone should thank them personally, but it's still the answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Oh nice, 144 new posts. [People earnestly engaging with OOCC for 3 pages, again] D'oh!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also why treat science like it's magic? ... inventing new chemistry... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think the extreme hyperfocus this thread has on my vacations is a super clear example of weird misdirection of attention based on bad metrics of what does or doesn't meaningfully contribute to climate change. It's because you can't stop bringing it up, you dumb gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
You treat science like it's a magic carpet to take you to a land of increased consumption without a concurrent increase in resource degradation, and apparently refuse to acknowledge that certain technologies cannot be made viable with the same functionality as their fossil-fuel powered equivalents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
on a meta level, the fact that people like owl are not banned or probated or in any effective way ostracized is a really clear example of the problem we're all just supposed to keep humoring these pieces of poo poo. they get to poison and derail the conversation as much as they want. we as a society have not yet formed the immune response that these people need to be excommunicated not engaged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:You treat science like it's a magic carpet to take you to a land of increased consumption without a concurrent increase in resource degradation, and apparently refuse to acknowledge that certain technologies cannot be made viable with the same functionality as their fossil-fuel powered equivalents. Why treat fossil fuel like it's mystic and we need to be all afraid of moving away? Countries moved from coal to nuclear and didn't all have to suffer and cry, you can buy a hybrid prius and get double the mpg in a perfectly normal car, or even buy an electric car as they come to market. People have flown planes on biofuel. Give up the idea that fossil fuels are magic and the only way things can be done and that everything else is inherently worse. Things have other solutions. I'm sure you can find some dumb niche thing where oil is the one and only physically possible way and that oil has to be drawn from the ground but the idea that fossil fuel is some super special thing that never can be replaced is pure propaganda. Places have nuclear power right now and it's not some nightmare poverty thing where everyone self sacrifices about how bad it is because they can't have their superior coal plants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
This is the part where we're supposed to get a lurker commenting on the tone of the conversation and how we're all acting like a bunch of psychos and damaging the climate movement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:This is the part where we're supposed to get a lurker commenting on the tone of the conversation and how we're all acting like a bunch of psychos and damaging the climate movement. "fossil fuel is the best at everything" is probably not the message the environmental movement should sell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why treat fossil fuel like it's mystic and we need to be all afraid of moving away? Countries moved from coal to nuclear and didn't all have to suffer and cry, you can buy a hybrid prius and get double the mpg in a perfectly normal car, or even buy an electric car as they come to market. People have flown planes on biofuel. Uranium has a greater energy density than coal, it's a no-brainer. Not all things have other engineerable solutions, particularly airplanes. As-is we have to reforest an area the size of Australia to survive this century, you're going to starve people to get the biofuels for jumbo jets? Electric cars are an excuse to keep having cars despite them being the worst thing we've ever done, and long range electric passenger planes are not a viable technology. Fossil fuels are super loving special, not in an emotional or propaganda sense, just basic science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Yeah the problem with a bunch of these "just let technology fix it" fantasies is they require completely ignoring the timelines required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
and also that the technology has existed for fifty plus years
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah the problem with a bunch of these "just let technology fix it" fantasies is they require completely ignoring the timelines required. It's the only timeline that exists. All the dumb "we will ban meat!"/"we will have a global 1 child policy!" stuff has a time line of "this is not stuff that is actually going to happen" no matter how often people present it as a one weird trick. Figuring out real solutions that actually solve the actual problems are the only choice we really have as things that could ever happen. If no one can figure out a way to avoid things entirely (increasingly likely) the next best thing is figuring out ways to minimize how bad it gets and minimize how long it lasts. If switching the majority of people to electric cars can't happen before 2058 that isn't gonna be enough to avoid people dieing, but it's still better than not doing it, on how bad it gets and what is required to recover. It'll be 500 years from now and you can still be sitting here just proclaiming yourself very smart because you know the one trick is that everyone just needs to reorganize every society on earth the way you say while it continues to not happen, while an actual fix to the machines doing it could actually solve something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
I don't think any solution that doesn't involve somehow changing the way we live is realistic though. The suburban car-based way of life with all its waste must die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:This is the part where we're supposed to get a lurker commenting on the tone of the conversation and how we're all acting like a bunch of psychos and damaging the climate movement. It honestly does come across that way  Yeah, everyone who's ever been in a thread with OOCC knows he's immune to reason and you shouldn't engage with him but seriously, browbeating people about not personally doing enough to fix climate change isn't how you win people over to a cause. People in the political threads constantly go on and on about how your democrats are a waste who discourage political engagement because they put the onus for social change on the voters instead of themselves/the wealthy who run the world, but somehow that's expected to work for climate change. It's the same problem: the vast majority of people in the street are too busy trying to get through the relentless hail of poo poo called a life to put in any meaningful effort toward this stuff, the focus should be on unlocking the trillions of dollars of wasted economic potential currently being hoarded by the elites/wasted on military posturing/manufacturing worthless nonsense and fixing the faulty structure that paralyzes humanity and funnels our labour and intellect into useless bullshit. You might eventually be able to convince 90% of the human race to make the personal changes needed to fix climate change from the ground up, but not in the span of a decade. It doesn't matter how right you are or how true it is that if everyone chipped in the problem will go away; humanity just doesn't work that way, big changes happen organically (thanks to the never-ending hard work of activists and lobbyists and protesters and scientists) like a tide that ebbs with the changing of generations and we need to be operating on a much more urgent time-scale. I understand that this gradual change needs to happen regardless because at the very least it'll reduce the severity of the calamity. I'm just frustrated at the fact that we have the means to fix this now and do it properly and urgently and the reasons we can't are purely political, I think other people posting to this effect are in the same boat. I've already helped elect the most climate-conscious government our country has ever seen and their target is for the country to be carbon-neutral by 2050. This isn't anywhere near enough so what now? Overthrow the government? Cause writing letters sure as poo poo won't let them circumvent the realities of budgets and economics and all the other things the machine we call a state runs on. Even if they instituted massive changes that put the entire economy's focus on fixing the environment, they'd be summarily voted out by millions of screaming poors in four years. And I'm on an island nation of only a few million people, even if I led a rebel movement to tear down the state and institute an eco-dictatorship, what am I meant to do about the hundreds of millions of americans, chinese, indians, europeans etc who don't give two fucks? I can't help but think that a global dictatorship or religious theocracy would be more capable of responding to the problem than the current 'everyone voluntarily do their own thing in the name of liberty' thing we've got going on, and that capitalism has simultaneously put us in this trap and taken away the tools that could fix it. Even if a few of you are genuine saints willing to undergo financial hardship in the name of reducing a tiny bit of the problem, the overwhelming majority of people can't or won't make that choice unless they're forced to. And at this point 'forced to' = climate catastrophe being a bigger problem than being poor which is only gonna start happening when it's far, far too late. Ok I'll go back to lurking now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
If we don't solve the problem with the current political frame, then a new political framework will emerge. The most likely one if we don't start changing voluntarily is something that'll look like fascism. Many of us would rather not see that, because gently caress me, that should be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I don't think any solution that doesn't involve somehow changing the way we live is realistic though. That is probably true. People in france/italy/spain where people have per capita emissions of 4-6 tons instead of american's 17-20 live their lifestyles differently, but like, generally comparable western lifestyles to the US/south korea/canada. There is no ecofascism or loss of freedoms or extreme deprivation. Just reasonable non-extreme variations on society. Like, the amount someone sitting in america acts like cutting their emissions in half could only happen if we give up everything and live in mud huts or something and thus it's either impossible or else advocate living in mud huts and spew hate at people saying we don't need to live in mud huts is insane, You can cut emissions in half then cut it nearly in half again and live the hellish existence of like... being a first world european. It's not even like france is at some hyper optimized floor either, they still only are 75% nuclear power. They have ~500 cars per 1000 people compared to america's 900, they aren't perfect either. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
The problem is... there is no problem... yet. Sea levels haven't risen to the point of inconvenience. Temperatures haven't risen to the point of inconvenience. None of the bad things that are predicted to happen because of climate change have happened yet. So climate change is going to be near the bottom of the average voter's concerns. What can be done right now by those who care about climate change is to find ways to reduce carbon emissions that also benefit people directly. Stuff like more fuel efficient cars falls into this category, because they help people save money on gas, which is something they actually care about. Screaming about the doomsday implications of climate change will not accomplish anything because the average voter simply won't believe you, or worse, do the opposite of what you're suggesting because they think you have some kind of nefarious agenda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's the only timeline that exists. Yeah, I mean you're wrong in a way that's obviously delusional but also quintessentially western. Is there really much to debate or discuss here? What is it you get out of this thread? The choices on offer are actually we will have a global 1 child policy or we will have a global none child policy. We'll ban factory farming or global famine will ban it for us (or most likely, we'll do the one shortly before the other). Life is not star trek, there are real physical limits to the planetary systems that support us. Just an example, iirc even stopping all GHG emissions but continuing to grow energy production by 2% a year for the next 300 years, we would cook the earth to the point of no longer supporting life just from the waste heat. This isn't a technical problem, it's a behavioral problem. If we're going to behave like an r-selected species in a closed system, we will sooner or later experience the fate of all such species. Your argument seems to be at root "human behavior can't be changed"... which ok, but why are you posting here if you believe that? Who is it you expect to convince?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Stuff like more fuel efficient cars falls into this category, because they help people save money on gas, which is something they actually care about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
EdithUpwards posted:and also that the technology has existed for fifty plus years I dunno, I think this thread does ignore the fact that prices of eco friendly stuff like solar panels and electric cars keep going down. it's the cost of the technology that's been the big issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:13
|
|
