|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What I took from it is <never stop making poo poo up>
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Nocturtle posted:This is a nice (scary) article in itself, but it also references a very handy Nature contemporary review of the most likely carbon-dioxide removal (CDR) and radiative-forcing geoengineering (RFG) options. Massive negative emissions are mandatory if you believe the Paris agreements 1.5C target is possible, and realistically even for the 2C target. Given that it's helpful for non-experts to have a short overview of likely CDR/RFG techs that gives a sense for which are feasible and can be deployed on time ie by 2050 (short answer: probably none!). The usual caveat applies, it's not worth getting excited about negative emissions until global emissions start approaching zero. lets start this page over with the one good post from last page and pretend the rest of it never happened edit: vvvvvvvvvvvvvv no it does not "indicate" that, please stop making poo poo up, please just stop the whole conversational thread, I'm sorry I replied to you StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:i honestly have no idea what logistical riddle you've built in your head Going "weeks" without eating mcdonalds is an extremely normal mid range amount of mcdonalds to eat. You say you eat 80% less than average red meat (or possibly claim someone else should do that that isn't you). Indicating a high percentage of your meat consumption is mcdonalds, which isn't morally wrong but like, vary your diet man, that is depressing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
So why not both decide to eat less beef AND advocate for major systemic changes that take on these multi-billion dollar fatcats? I'm not gonna save the world because I bought a recycling bin and am making marinara sauce instead of meat sauce. But I'm hurting it less, and if done by a lot of people at once with me, it might offer a small chunk of help alongside all the other things we might be able to do to stop global environmental catastrophe between meals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
Because simply "advocating" for major systemic change is not good enough. There is no advocacy that will make a significant change in the time frame required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:This is because you're still within the confines of a certain way of thinking. If this is a reference to assassination, ecoterrorism, sabotage and/or revolution, I’ll just say that the first three are probably good things but ultimately have as low an impact as personal change of consumption patterns, and that the third is by definition collective and requires political education and radicalization to a much higher degree than personal action. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
I would never imply that anyone should use violence. But parts of your post are quite wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
Well, with a proper propaganda apparatus, sabotage and ecoterrorism would be excellent tools to spur collective action, I suppose. But the key is a proper propaganda apparatus. The one in place right now will pooh-pooh you to death for your senseless violence against capital. And a single person’s ability to disrupt carbon emissions through violent means remains limited IMO. How many billionaires or captains of industry can you murder before they catch you? How many tires of cars that go over the 100g/km limit can you slash? How much of a coal plant can you singlehandedly and irrevocably destroy? Is it even possible for one person to sink a container or a cruise ship? Am I missing something obvious? Can’t we even discuss the theoreticals of violence applied to ecological issues, its potential impacts and so forth, without getting banned?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Can’t we even discuss the theoreticals of violence applied to ecological issues, its potential impacts and so forth, without getting banned? No.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
How cowardly of us, not even willing to risk  in the fight for our own lives. How so very revelatory of how self-defeated we all already are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:How cowardly of us, not even willing to risk Buddy,  Lowtax has a spine to regenerate, or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
it goes beyond just spending $10bux on bans because if it's discussed enough it won't matter if the people talking about it get banned for it
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 11:11
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Because simply "advocating" for major systemic change is not good enough. There is no advocacy that will make a significant change in the time frame required. Then what do you want to happen then? I can't do anything but advocate. You act like we can just sneak into Exxon's CEO corner office and press the Don't Pollute button.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
Nazgul posted:I'm not gonna save the world because I bought a recycling bin and am making marinara sauce instead of meat sauce. But I'm hurting it less, and if done by a lot of people at once with me, it might offer a small chunk of help alongside all the other things we might be able to do to stop global environmental catastrophe between meals. Think about the people that preach that poor people need to stop buying so many hub caps or nike shoes to get off welfare or the people that say millennials need to buy not buy avocado toast and they can buy a house. You can make some fake claim that in either case the advice is good because the 50 dollars a year they'd save could be some abstract small fraction of some long term budget, but it's a garbage answer that only exists to shift blame and mask the problems. It's not even that there can be no change in behavior of any type, it's the reframing of the issues as personal consumption problems that can be solved through self sacrifice are actively harmful. And the reframing of the issue away from the real issues into endless discussion of extremely minor fractional fractional causes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Think about the people that preach that poor people need to stop buying so many hub caps or nike shoes to get off welfare or the people that say millennials need to buy not buy avocado toast and they can buy a house. You can make some fake claim that in either case the advice is good because the 50 dollars a year they'd save could be some abstract small fraction of some long term budget, but it's a garbage answer that only exists to shift blame and mask the problems. The avocado toast analogy is a bad one. Owning a house is a binary proposition. You either own one or you don't. If you save 20% of the money for a house, you don't have 1/5th of a building. You have no building at all. If you make inroads into your personal carbon footprint, you are offsetting at least some harm from everything else. Also reducing our carbon footprint is a goal in itself, even if it has negligible global impact on an individual or even a collective scale. Moving public consciousness from 'I don't give a poo poo about how much I consume' to 'I need to give a poo poo about how much I consume', will drive policy and help to make bigger inroads politically viable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Think about the people that preach that poor people need to stop buying so many hub caps or nike shoes to get off welfare or the people that say millennials need to buy not buy avocado toast and they can buy a house. You can make some fake claim that in either case the advice is good because the 50 dollars a year they'd save could be some abstract small fraction of some long term budget, but it's a garbage answer that only exists to shift blame and mask the problems. In my mind, encouraging individual action serves to reframe the idea of mindless consumption. The promise of capitalism is being able to purchase whatever you want, whenever you want, with no concern for how it go into your hands. Individual action campaigns push consumers to consider that the fulfillment of this promise does have negative consequences. It's step one in building public support for a new model of consumption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
How about this: neutral packaging, minimization of brands, disheartening images and LOUD text in Impact on all the packages of stuff that took more than [some arbitrary amount] of CO2 to produce and transport, or that caused deforestation, stuff like that. Advertising for such products would also be banned. It worked to get a lot people to stop smoking. Perhaps it might trigger significant changes in consumption patterns?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:And a single person’s ability to disrupt carbon emissions through violent means remains limited IMO. How many billionaires or captains of industry can you murder before they catch you? How many tires of cars that go over the 100g/km limit can you slash? How much of a coal plant can you singlehandedly and irrevocably destroy? Is it even possible for one person to sink a container or a cruise ship? Am I missing something obvious? imho the eco sabotage that needs to emerge will probably be drone based. you could do an awful lot to a coal plant, coal mine, rail track and shipping tanker with today's already existing drones. much like with a "dirty bomb" you really barely even have to harm anything to cause the first few freak outs and price-spikes. I like to dream of the straights of hormuz being shut down by bangladeshi special forces having put a couple dozen plasma cutters into arduino powered kayaks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:geoengineering was pretty much verboten in the aughts because there was the belief that if people started talking geoengineering it would allow us to continue with current or higher emission levels while engaging in some fairly risky technology that could easily backfire based on not knowing enough about the interactions between various systems that we were going to meddle with. It's funny to think people were concerned that geoengineering research would undercut emission reduction efforts. It turns out the economy will happily increase emissions anyway even without a theoretical geoengineering backstop in place. Totally agree that modern industrial society's future is contingent on massive emission reductions AND large-scale geoengineering (the first much more pressing than the second). While we're still at the point where geoengineering aren't necessarily required if emissions are cut fast enough, it's pretty clear that won't happen. Re: international treaties, most world govts are somewhere between pretending Paris agreement commitments are sufficient to aggressively denialist. Getting everyone on board with geoengineering would be quite a U-turn, but would be progress in terms of explicitly recognizing climate change is a major problem and that our inaction has had consequences. edit: It hasn't been discussed here, but the young person climate lawsuit that had been making progress through the US court system has hit a temporary roadblock in the Supreme Court: AP news posted:US temporarily stops youth climate lawsuit days before trial I actually sort of agree with govt here, in that this is a conflict that should be mediated through the political process. Americans have come to rely too much on the court system (and the Supreme Court in particular) to cover up for the shortcomings of their broken political system. In practice every single possible avenue needs to be pursued, and the court system has advantages as it's nominally supposed to consider actual evidence and facts (things no longer relevant to political discourse). edit 2: VVVVV Fine, just pretend I wrote "The ideal course of action that minimizes future suffering and death now includes massive emission reductions and blahblah..." Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
"Modern Industrial Society" has no future, and it would be best if people moved past the denial stage and into acceptance of this as our future reality. Edit: In other news, Mass-migration in the Americas has hit a new milestone. quote:The throng grew even larger than when the migrants arrived at the border bridge, swelling overnight to 5,000. And we haven't even begun to see severe resource shortages (at least, ones which are not artificially induced by capitalism) yet. Sobering. Rime fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:In my mind, encouraging individual action serves to reframe the idea of mindless consumption. But is that the cause? or is that a distraction? Go to a per capita list of carbon output like this and sort by low or high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita It looks like a list of "countries that are very hot in order of how hot they are" followed by "countries that are rich in a jumbled order" followed by "countries that are poor in a jumbled order" and it doesn't really look like any obvious strong vs weak willed puts much into it, or any smart and stupid or moral vs immoral, I don't think that switzerland is 50% less mindless than norway or anything. None of the rankings seem to map up to any particular sort of moral judgement. Like maybe somewhere deep in the decimal points that got cut off there really is some specific "everyone in this country is strong minded and everyone in this other country are weak willed and love consumerism!" but the numbers seem so widely variant just based on the big stuff that worrying if that is even a testable hypothesis seems way off. Like, what sort of powerplants they use and how robust their train system is seems to be 100x more impact than any vague personal thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But is that the cause? or is that a distraction? Go to a per capita list of carbon output like this and sort by low or high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita The point is that a mindful person would consider: 1) The power used to produce goods a) How this power was produced 2) The distance goods are shipped during the supply chain a) What methods were used to ship the goods 3) The raw materials required to produce the goods Until people are forced into an awareness that every good consumed has an associated environmental cost, they'll never care about any of the above. My thought is that individual action campaigns effect this awareness. The rest comes from education. With an understanding of 1-3, the population could then push for changes to the systemic sources of greenhouse emissions. Once Joe Suburbia understands that his straw is bad for the environment, we can teach him about the bunker fuel that was used to ship it across the pacific. twice burned ice fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:Until people are forced into an awareness that every good consumed has an associated environmental cost, they'll never care about any of the above. My thought is that individual action campaigns effect this awareness. The rest comes from education. It's just, we have countries on this earth right now that have per capita co2 output from .1 to 40 tons per year. The systemic factors seem like they account for 100% of that 40,000% difference. Weird little minor education and personality trait stuff shows up after the decimal point if at all. Like singular action and advocacy is what turns into collective action and change but like, freak out and get mad if you live near a coal plant, fight for better chemistry classes in schools so we get more chemists that can deal with battery chemistry or carbon recapture or something, vote to get a new train line added. That stuff could matter and could solve real things. Fiddling with the exact details of your exact carbon footprint never ever will. Like fight for people to put less meatballs in their sauce or whatever and it's not hurting things if you got some nice cook book tips for your friends or kids or whatever and they go for it, but don't let that silly stuff suck the air out of the room for defining the movement as if that is what matters or that the global warming's threat is about micromanaging tiny frivolous nonsense like that or a plan to push it on unwilling people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I actually sort of agree with govt here, in that this is a conflict that should be mediated through the political process. Americans have come to rely too much on the court system (and the Supreme Court in particular) to cover up for the shortcomings of their broken political system. In practice every single possible avenue needs to be pursued, and the court system has advantages as it's nominally supposed to consider actual evidence and facts (things no longer relevant to political discourse). But using the judicial branch as a check on the executive and/or legislative branch is part of the political process. People don't lose the right to protest what the government is doing when an election ends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like singular action and advocacy is what turns into collective action and change but like, freak out and get mad if you live near a coal plant, fight for better chemistry classes in schools so we get more chemists that can deal with battery chemistry or carbon recapture or something, vote to get a new train line added. That stuff could matter and could solve real things. Fiddling with the exact details of your exact carbon footprint never ever will. So you agree that action that matters follows individual action, you want action that matters, and yet you argue that individual action is pointless? You're not gonna get people protesting outside of coal power plants until after they realize that they should use public transit instead of a car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But is that the cause? or is that a distraction? Go to a per capita list of carbon output like this and sort by low or high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's just, we have countries on this earth right now that have per capita co2 output from .1 to 40 tons per year. The systemic factors seem like they account for 100% of that 40,000% difference. Weird little minor education and personality trait stuff shows up after the decimal point if at all. Maybe that's a sign that you're pretty bad at data interpretation? idk I mean, the top of your list are Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Kuwait, Bahrein, Brunei, UEA and Saudi Arabia, can't you think of the one thing that might be common to these countries and linked to CO2 emissions? There's also Oman and Kazakhstan near the top of the list. Does that help? The fact remains that between the US and other countries on a similar level of development, Australia and Canada excepted, the difference is 2:1 and can get close to 3:1. Oil production (yeah that was the common thread between the aforementioned countries) might play a part but let's get real here, a huge part of the reasons why the US and European countries are so dissimilar in terms of per capita emissions are purely cultural. You seem to have missed this the last time, so let me remind you: Flowers For Algeria posted:Y’all have two and a half times as many airplane passengers carried per capita. Twice as many road passenger kilometers per capita. You consume twice as much oil in general, and twice as much electricity in general. One and a half times as much meat. Three times as much water. And I’m not cheating and using EU averages that are brought down by Poland, Greece, Hungary or even Spain, I’m using France, a very wasteful country with high consumption figures. This is not a purely infrastructural issue that can be solved through technology or progress, it is very much cultural and needs to be addressed at the political level by coaxing or enforcing cultural change, which necessarily passes through modifying individual patterns. Stop bullshitting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I mean, the top of your list are Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Kuwait, Bahrein, Brunei, UEA and Saudi Arabia, can't you think of the one thing that might be common to these countries and linked to CO2 emissions? There's also Oman and Kazakhstan near the top of the list. Does that help? Yes, I can, and it sure makes it stark how the big systemic issues drown out the tiny variations of personal responsibility or individual willpower or consumerism or something. The UAE is so hot they air condition their open air sidewalks in places. They used to run everything on random disorganized gasoline generators and were making 40 tons of co2 per person, then switched to natural gas and got it to 20 tons per person, now they are going all in on nuclear and solar and I'm gonna bet dollars to donuts when they do their numbers will be even lower. They are building robot trains and a tram and a hyperloop too (lol) and when that goes in the amount will drop even more I bet. And those are huge changes that will cut their footprint in half again and again and is nothing to do with fiddly individual discretionary 'sacrifices'. It's real solutions that actually matter. Will actually be implemented (maybe not the hyperloop, but maybe that too!) and will have real impact on a realistic timescale. Not some weird worrying about meat sauce that might have some .5% impact generations from now if it pays off in "inspiring others' but probably won't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
I'm not going to ban or probate you, but I would greatly prefer if you did not theorycraft ecoterrorism in this thread. I recognize politically that direct action of that type may be necessary in the context of dealing with climate change, but as a matter of PR for the forums, I would rather we did not get any FBI visits, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Frightening Knight posted:I'm not going to ban or probate you, but I would greatly prefer if you did not theorycraft ecoterrorism in this thread. I recognize politically that direct action of that type may be necessary in the context of dealing with climate change, but as a matter of PR for the forums, I would rather we did not get any FBI visits, thanks.  we could do a group-writing exercise, like slenderman but for the BANG-SWADS like, the intro could be something like our main character meeting an american tourist at a restaurant, telling him all about how his uncle just committed suicide because crops failed for a third year, and the response being "I'm just here to pet cats" ...
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:c'mon right wingers get to jack off to their too-stupid-for-tom-clancy scenarios all day every day why can't we I would probably read this book tbh, but I would rather let you know now about posting about it so that you don't get a harsher punishment later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Man, that's a sad state of affairs you guys are in, constrained as you are by your police state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:like, the intro could be something like our main character meeting an american tourist at a restaurant, telling him all about how his uncle just committed suicide because crops failed for a third year, and the response being "I'm just here to pet cats" ... Two days till I go to germany, to visit pee pee's cat cafe. (Pee Pees Katzencafe)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Man, that's a sad state of affairs you guys are in, constrained as you are by your police state. It is one of my main daily anxieties!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Frightening Knight posted:I would probably read this book tbh, but I would rather let you know now about posting about it so that you don't get a harsher punishment later. don't worry! the bad guys in this book are headquartered in "The Octagon" and worshiped by a giant societal death-cult that calls itself The Middle, its not about america at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:don't worry! the bad guys in this book are headquartered in "The Octagon" and worshiped by a giant societal death-cult that calls itself The Middle, its not about america at all.  This is satire I can get behind, imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Uranium has a greater energy density than coal, it's a no-brainer. Bio-fuels (except possible algae-based) are a non-starter for aviation. Solar fuels (solar panels -> electricity -> hydrogen -> liquid fuel) are a better bet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:It'd be nice if it actually managed to stay on budget. Nuclear Energy is just like Communism, it just hasn't been done right yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Two days till I go to germany, to visit pee pee's cat cafe. (Pee Pees Katzencafe) if you're actually doing this, this is some pretty advanced trolling. please post photos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Socks4Hands posted:if you're actually doing this, this is some pretty advanced trolling. please post photos. 100% real and I'll post a picture in a week or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:100% real and I'll post a picture in a week or so. If you don't I'm going to queue a ban for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 00:00
|
|