|
Let me rephrase the argument then, does consumerism have to end in order to solve climate change? I don't think it does. It has little to do with climate change in the scheme of things are mostly a irrelevant sideshow.
Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 6, 2023 |
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
The trick about climate change is that it's too big to fix with one solution, like converting to clean power over the next several decades. Ending consumerism is also about the exploitation of people to produce those cheap goods and the destruction of the environment they live in. That is the most important externality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Shipping liquids is extremely inefficient. Personally, I would encourage or try to have regulations that limit shipping in places like the United States or Europe where you have sanitations service and clean tap water. When I was growing up in the 80s, the milk came from the dairy about a dozen miles away, and was delivered in the morning by a guy driving a little electrified milk float that was about halfway between a golf buggy and a USPS truck. It was cheap as hell and the glass bottles were collected and re-used every day. The tinfoil lids were presumably recyclable but that didn't happen because it was the 80s. I know that sounds like quintessential back-in-my-day boomerism, but I think we could afford the carbon cost of that setup. If you live in some hellhole like Arizona maybe you don't get milk, tough poo poo. I don't think a proposal of "you'll drink tap water and you'll like it" is really engaging with reality in any useful way
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:The trick about climate change is that it's too big to fix with one solution, like converting to clean power over the next several decades. I am not sure what you mean? Like 99.9998% of the solution is literally just electrify everything. It's sort of simple but really hard when it has to be done with renewables with nuclear, hydro, etc. at scale when demand is still rapidly increasing. Adenoid Dan posted:Ending consumerism is also about the exploitation of people to produce those cheap goods and the destruction of the environment they live in. That is the most important externality. I agree. Failed Imagineer posted:I don't think a proposal of "you'll drink tap water and you'll like it" is really engaging with reality in any useful way  I don't think a heavy handed approach like that would work but a law or regulation that did something like enforcing public places to have things like accessible, clean, well-maintained water fountains in public areas is something that really should be done. Hell, I think some part of Europe do this already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
USGS estimates at least 45% of U.S. tap water contain forever chemicals Yum. Of course, this probably means that bottled water is even worse, since the vast majority of it is just tapped water stored and shipped in plastic bottles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I don't think a heavy handed approach like that would work but a law or regulation that did something like enforcing public places to have things like accessible, clean, well-maintained water fountains in public areas is something that really should be done. Hell, I think some part of Europe do this already. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:USGS estimates at least 45% of U.S. tap water contain forever chemicals The ones that are openly tapwater, like Dasani or Essentia, usually use reverse osmosis for filtration, which does remove PFAS
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
The biggest reason you have so many single-use beverages is largely because most of the world doesn't have accessible clean drinkable tap water. Things like consumerism just accelerates availability which is good in the sense that you have a bunch of fancy drinks but bad in the sense you have all this pollution. The real solution is to get people to come together, invest in public services but unfortunately everyone hates big government and taxes. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Let me rephrase the argument then, does consumerism have to end in order to solve climate change? I don't think it does. It has little to do with climate change in the scheme of things are mostly a irrelevant sideshow. I have never stated that all consumerism has to end nor that it is necessary to accomplish climate change goals (assuming in this hypothetical we are already accomplishing this. I did say that efforts should be made to curtail it in some way, because *breathes in* it still contributed to climate change, and does so in ways that aren't necessarily reflected in "this is how much carbon impact it took to make the shirt." And as I have pointed out at least three times, there are much more general environmental reasons to do so, including things like landfill waste, deforestation, and public health issues. And the original post saying "consumerism has to end to solve climate change" is marginally correct in that "consumerism" is such a broad concept that you could certainly argue that enough knock on effects that cause other emissions are a result of said consumerism. Btw I think you (theoretically) could accomplish a lot of this via top down regulations on the companies producing all this poo poo. If the country decides to revolt because they don't get toys in their happy meals, then we collectively are awful people and deserve our ruin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I don't think a proposal of "you'll drink tap water and you'll like it" is really engaging with reality in any useful way If the problem is distribution efficiency, and we already have these pipes running to everyone's home, let's just switch it up and have Mountain Dew Wednesdays and Beer Saturdays. I do notice that all my local breweries distribute in cans, and only places with larger distribution tend to use bottles. I don't know if that's only a cost factor but I'd certainly prefer whatever is more efficient, although maybe we can do without nationally distributed liquids entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Let me rephrase the argument then, does consumerism have to end in order to solve climate change? I don't think it does. It has little to do with climate change in the scheme of things are mostly a irrelevant sideshow. To try to pin the issue on consumerism is to attempt to foist undue proportion blame onto the common man. Consumerism is a component of the problem, but there are far more apt, central issues to go after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:... I broadly agree of course, consumerism is bad for a bunch of reasons including climate and we should work on that. But I just think that going after that now is not the most productive approach. People will get mad about their toys and paper straws, there will be a million lobbying groups trying to protect their interests, etc. Just doesn't seem necessary to pick so many battles now. Especially when it will not amount to much. quote:To stay below 1.5 °C of global warming, emissions need to be cut by roughly 50% by 2030. This is an aggregate of each country's nationally determined contributions.[4] Now this chart again. There's one big red spot that stands out, that we could keep a third of while meeting the most ambitious targets:  If we replace the source of energy inputs from coal, oil and gas, the climate impact of clothing and bottled water and what not will all become negligible. A lot of that energy is something we can replace reasonably easily - electricity generation, heating, most of the road transportation. Some industrial uses could be difficult to substitute (as will air and shipping) but we don't even have to do that. And broadly people are already fine with this direction already!  (from yougov) If everyone took this poo poo seriously in 2015 I'm pretty confident we could've done it, now ehhhh. Still, building a nuclear plant or a wind farm is going to make way more of a difference than everyone wearing the same shirt for a year. In other words: Crosby B. Alfred posted:I am not sure what you mean? Like 99.9998% of the solution is literally just electrify everything. It's sort of simple but really hard when it has to be done with renewables with nuclear, hydro, etc. at scale when demand is still rapidly increasing. Potato Salad posted:To try to pin the issue on consumerism is to attempt to foist undue proportion blame onto the common man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I have some bad news for you buddy... I don't disagree with you on most of this but I have bad news about the gas oil and coal lobbyists already in DC. Not sure if the Big Toy lobby would be as effective, but legislators appear to be on sale for pretty cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Let me rephrase the argument then, does consumerism have to end in order to solve climate change? I don't think it does. It has little to do with climate change in the scheme of things are mostly a irrelevant sideshow. I agree with you in that it seems climate change will end consumerism before consumerism ends climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Shipping liquids is extremely inefficient. Personally, I would encourage or try to have regulations that limit shipping in places like the United States or Europe where you have sanitations service and clean tap water. That is a broad statement that isn’t at all accurate and pipelines like a municipal water system are shipping btw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The biggest reason you have so many single-use beverages is largely because most of the world doesn't have accessible clean drinkable tap water. Things like consumerism just accelerates availability which is good in the sense that you have a bunch of fancy drinks but bad in the sense you have all this pollution. I completely disagree with this. I would go so far as to say it is an inverse relationship between the availability of sanitary tap water and the consumption of beverages other than water. Drinking bottle drink in a place with sanitary drinking water is the very definition of consumerism (especially booze where it actively harms your health too) but we are all too squeamish to consider rubbing it out because when people talk about consumerism, they are generally talking about other people's consumption choices. Professor Beetus posted:
The point is people use intuition/ own personal choices/non-environmental moral crusade to work out what they think other people should be not allowed to have in the name of the environment. Often, like in the case of clothing, it is nowhere near that straight forward to ban synthetics and go cotton even from a CO2 impact point of view. Shipping is another good one, bulk shipping is AMAZING at bringing together stuff to manufacture and distributing it at waaaaay lower CO2 cost than providing all the goods required at a certain location locally from scratch. Not just from a cost point of view, but from CO2 emissions point of view (A bulk coal carrier out of Gladston, Australia can cause less CO2 than locally mined Chinese coal even with shipping CO2 emissions included).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 09:08
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I completely disagree with this. I would go so far as to say it is an inverse relationship between the availability of sanitary tap water and the consumption of beverages other than water. Since this is the second time you've brought it up, are you saying that we should end the practice of consuming any liquid other than water or am I missing the point and you're using an exaggeration to make it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Is there a go-to source for an up-to-date look at carbon capture technology and its viability in 2023? The scale at which carbon capture starts to make a difference involves "grind down the southern half of Ohio 's olivine rocks into rock dust, flood it, and bubble air through it". Everything else is a joke in poor taste.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Since this is the second time you've brought it up, are you saying that we should end the practice of consuming any liquid other than water or am I missing the point and you're using an exaggeration to make it? Like I said, baby formula, oral rehydration therapy, etc has specific uses for some people but yes, you could cut down otherwise useless emissions for no loss in human health (actually it would benefit human health) if you straight up banned sale of beverages. The occasional packaged beverage is a luxury for most of the world anyway. However, I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze, there are other and far more better ways to tackle climate change (industrial scale rollout of low carbon energy generation along with fast track (within limits) approvals, I'm looking at you). I just bring it up as a consumption that is entirely unnecessary except that it is the way people like to do things. Joey Steel posted:The scale at which carbon capture starts to make a difference involves "grind down the southern half of Ohio 's olivine rocks into rock dust, flood it, and bubble air through it". Everything else is a joke in poor taste. Funnily enough...https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65648361 Says about a ratio of 4 to 1 which is a lot better than I expected. Mining and crushing would be about $5-$7 a tonne I reckon which suggest a carbon sequestration cost of ~ $30 a tonne within a few km range of the quary). I am doubtful of the ratio to be honest but making it a normal part of farm management would be good for cost control. Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The point is people use intuition/ own personal choices/non-environmental moral crusade to work out what they think other people should be not allowed to have in the name of the environment. Often, like in the case of clothing, it is nowhere near that straight forward to ban synthetics and go cotton even from a CO2 impact point of view. I'm just going to make a minor quibble here that I did not suggest that as a solution to clothing waste issues. I did ask what kinds of things can be done to reduce monoculture farming of cotton, reduce water use, or what alternative plant fibers might be more environmentally sustainable. Hemp for instance? Not sure, I'm not a plant person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:That is a broad statement that isn’t at all accurate and pipelines like a municipal water system are shipping btw. What makes you say that? What is incorrect? Why? Electric Wrigglies posted:Like I said, baby formula, oral rehydration therapy, etc has specific uses for some people but yes, you could cut down otherwise useless emissions for no loss in human health (actually it would benefit human health) if you straight up banned sale of beverages. The occasional packaged beverage is a luxury for most of the world anyway. Expect it isn't? Have you been to actual third world countries? The whole reason you have all these fancy beverage companies is specifically because you have to drink water out of a bottle or you will get sick even if you swallow water in yours bathroom shower. I also agree, there likely is absolutely a inverse relationship between single use beverages and the availability of tap water but for expanding tap water! Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
Why is the climate change thread talking about ending the consumption of beverages. This is in no way a meaningful threshold to action or change.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:What makes you say that? What is incorrect? Why? The shipping of liquids isn’t anymore or less efficient than the shipping of anything else. Why do you think liquids are particularly inefficient to ship?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The shipping of liquids isn’t anymore or less efficient than the shipping of anything else. Why ship liquids when there's as you said already an underground transportation system for water. Discendo Vox posted:Why is the climate change thread talking about ending the consumption of beverages. This is in no way a meaningful threshold to action or change. Good question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Why ship liquids when there's as you said already an underground transportation system for water. Liquids =! Water.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Liquids =! Water.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 03:23
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:I suppose many commercially important liquids are the result of chemical reactions or mixtures. You could get a small bump by mandating on-site or localized production or finishing techniques where possible. For example, a facility that uses large quantities of bleach could be required to generate sodium hypochlorite on site, instead of having it trucked in. You might also mandate away bottled waters from far away like Fiji. This isn't going to move the needle that much though. Your example is a rather dangerous hazardous material. Bleaching powder transported as a solid is nasty stuff as either sodium or calcium hypochlorite variety. It’s transported for water treatment. It would be an extremely bad idea to be manufacturing it on site all over the place. Fiji water is of course a stupid abomination.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Your example is a rather dangerous hazardous material. Bleaching powder transported as a solid is nasty stuff as either sodium or calcium hypochlorite variety. It’s transported for water treatment. It would be an extremely bad idea to be manufacturing it on site all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
They are switching because several ocean carriers refuse to transport it now and list it as a forbidden cargo and in some cases they can’t get it delivered at all because of which services call which ports. There were several high profile vessel fires with it specially as the cause. Edit: it’s nasty stuff and on site manufacture also changes how it’s regulated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1677075431462260736?t=ckUu1Zez9psTa6Pxv6IEZg&s=19 I don't think I've ever seen a more clear capitulation "If we can just stay under 3.5" holy poo poo this planet is gonna boil alive
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Why is the climate change thread talking about ending the consumption of beverages. This is in no way a meaningful threshold to action or change. You can always be the change you want to see and share with us something else that you want to discuss, instead of complaining... right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1677075431462260736?t=ckUu1Zez9psTa6Pxv6IEZg&s=19 You are not accurately portraying the content of the video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You are not accurately portraying the content of the video. I just watched this entire exchange. I recall that this is the same man who used the appearance of incrementalism as a palming trick to keep Guantanamo Bay open. This is absolutely a capitulation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You are not accurately portraying the content of the video. You don't think it's incredibly meaningful and alarming that Barack Obama himself cited 3.5° as a threshold?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I just watched this entire exchange. I recall that this is the same man who used the appearance of incrementalism as a palming trick to keep Guantanamo Bay open. He failed to close Guantanamo. He didn’t fake trying to close it. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo The man being a failure is a very different thing than the man being a liar. And his failure is absolutely rooted in ideology and privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:52
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:You can always be the change you want to see and share with us something else that you want to discuss, instead of complaining... right? Okay, sure. Stop me if you've heard this one before. Cambridge published a short article, "the discourses of delay" in 2020 describing the playbook used to sabotage discussion and action around climate change.  It might look familiar, it was posted in 2021. Among other arguments, the article describes: 1. "individualism" appeals, by which individual behavior change is given inappropriate and distracting weight in changing emissions, distracting from effective policy changes 2. "change is impossible" or futility appeals, under which the only changes that can resolve the situation are contrary to human nature or current society. In this context, we have already had multiple people post evidence about why demanding that everyone stops drinking things other than water is a nonsensical distraction- a requirement of massive, global reconstruction of human behavior for a relatively small returns compared to better identified and established policy changes. Why entertain it?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:54
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:You don't think it's incredibly meaningful and alarming that Barack Obama himself cited 3.5° as a threshold? Contextually he’s staying that any marginal rise in temperature that can be prevented is a win. That 2.5 is better than 3. That 3 is better than 3.5. That fighting is worth continuing in spite of failure. And it very much looks like we are going to fail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Contextually he’s staying that any marginal rise in temperature that can be prevented is a win. That 2.5 is better than 3. That 3 is better than 3.5. Have you ever seen a major public figure like Obama cite anything like 3° or 3.5° as the failure state before? You don't think the fact that he literally in that conversation capitulates on stopping warming at 2° represents a monumental change in rhetoric? A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jul 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:He failed to close Guantanamo. He didn’t fake trying to close it. I'm like 90% sure you're being sincere, so I'm going to go with the idea that, like, Okay, I bolded part of your post. Do you potentially see where we might be coming from on the capitulation? Your mention of failure rooted in his privilege and ideology is very very insightful and I think we're actually pretty close to being on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Contextually he’s staying that any marginal rise in temperature that can be prevented is a win. That 2.5 is better than 3. That 3 is better than 3.5. Technically that's what this human male, wearing a suit, seated, ageing gracefully, is saying. In this one interview, in a vacuum. What Format President Barack Obama is saying, in 2023, however,
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 06:22
|
|