|
Where does any of this say "we could be totally wrong here, and if so, sorry for wasting everyone's time!". The fact is, even on the low end, we're talking about a serious problem that needs addressed. On the high end, it's "grab your loving ankles". Nobody is saying "well, you know, this might all just be bullshit. Maybe the climate will cool instead!" Of course they can't perfectly predict the amount of rainfall expected in the year 2397. That's why they use as many models as they have available (which you may have noticed, using past data, accurately predicts the present), and all the data they have available. They expect a large margin of error for something so potentially imprecise - but regardless of the potential imprecision, the trend is there. Global warming can't be dismissed with a handwave because the science isn't perfect, or nobody has a time machine to go check the temperature in the year 2100, or whatever bullshit reason you want to dream up. It's a reality whether it's 1.1 degrees or 6.0 degrees of warming. And even if we're talking about the low end of the spectrum here, how exactly is 1.1 degrees of warming by any specific date no big deal? It's still a problem that will have lasting, serious effects. Even if it isn't being helped along by humans. You can be skeptical all you want about the data, or the methods used to refine it into a climate prediction for some future year, or the potential inaccuracies in that final prediction, but when the planet tells you to get hosed, you get hosed.
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
froglet posted:Why won't our governments wake up? Isn't it obvious enough now? There is no money in cleaning up the environment, only cost. There is, on the other hand, money in making things worse. Money drives policy, and anti-climate change lobby is a thing. We're not talking about people that are thinking long term here. What's today's bottom line? Nobody gives a poo poo about 100 years from now, (or 50, or 20), because there's money to be made today by making GBS threads up the environment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Flashing Twelve posted:This is the most absolutely depressing thing about the whole situation. You can unplug appliances when they're not being used, walk/cycle/bus everywhere you need to go, take short cold showers, recycle your food waste, and all that inconvenience and sacrifice doesn't matter one tiny bit because your neighbour hasn't turned off his TV in three years, drives an inefficient 4WD everywhere he goes, takes long hot showers twice a day and buys everything individually-wrapped. And then there's the people who have children, which is one of the most environmentally damaging things you can do in the long term. Fact is, being "green" as an individual really doesn't mean much. Society as a whole must change or there will be no change. And I hate to break it to you, we ain't gonna change. At least, not before we're already hosed beyond recovery. I'm not saying go ahead and leave your TV on when you're at work, because gently caress it. But realize that people are not going to be receptive to "you can't drive your car" or "stop having children", and even getting everyone to do something simple like turning the lights off when they're not in a room is probably an unrealistic expectation. People still don't believe global warming exists. Nobody's going to give up their conveniences, their TV, their transportation, or rethink their decision to reproduce if there is no immediate, tangible threat to their existence. Global warming doesn't present that kind of threat. It takes time. And by the time you reach oh-poo poo-we're-hosed-ville, reducing man-made carbon emissions to ZERO won't help. It's going to happen anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I don't necessarily agree with legislating people's reproductive decisions (that doesn't quite have a sterling history). I think if there is to be a solution it at least has to work around existing structures that give freedom. Eco-fascism would solve the problem handily, but is it preferable? I don't think anyone would suggest legislation against excessive reproduction (wherever you draw THAT line), and I certainly wouldn't. Unless, of course, you're China, but that's neither here nor there really. My point was that the very idea that having children is bad for the environment is not something the media, or politicians would touch with a 10 meter cattle prod, yet it has a huge impact on the environment nevertheless. Much larger than driving an inefficient SUV. I would say though that I firmly believe that nothing short of eco-fascist government intervention will sway us from our path to climate self-immolation. Nobody will give up their TV or SUV any more than they'd agree not to have more than one child if they wanted to have more. If left to everyone, the trend will not reverse until it's too late, if even then. If the decision was up to you, would you let 6-7 billion people die over the course of the next 50-100 years, or would you enact harsh, likely unpopular legislation to prevent it? Is an individuals television, SUV, and right to reproduce worth the lives of billions? Can we not live a comfortable lifestyle without heavy use of fossil fuels, disposable electronics, and wasteful practices, if we put in an actual effort to do so? I believe we can, we just choose not to. It's easier not to. It's more profitable not to. It's inconvenient that the climate might might not agree with us, and might just kill us off over it. It's no different than the economy. Immediate gain is necessary, and gently caress the long-term outlook.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Nothing could be more counterproductive than this type of thinking. What, that people wouldn't be receptive to the suggestion that they give up their TV, their SUV, or their right to reproduce? You might want to go back and re-read what I posted. Human nature is what I'm talking about here. Change on a global scale is necessary. Change on an individual scale will not do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Here's something I've often heard said (roughly) in social justice circles: we definitely need institutional and cultural change like nothing else, but you don't just walk in to congress and *bang* change the culture. It happens always on an individual basis--thousands and millions of conversations with individual people, getting them to think even a little bit differently. That's really all we can do on a day-to-day basis and without millions of dollars to throw around. Granted, and again, I'm not saying that individuals should just say gently caress it, burn it down. I'm saying that you're going to need a whole lot more people on board than current before any meaningful impact is realized. There has to be a change in the culture or the culture is going to result in the deaths of billions. It really is that simple. Are you content to wait (and hope) for that culture to change organically? Will it occur? Will it occur in time? The clock is ticking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:"Change organically" versus what, exactly? Outside intervention. Legislation. Anything that prompts immediate change, or forces it. I'm not suggesting a course of action, I'm simply... observing the lack of motivation for the majority to take action. If they do not perceive a problem, they will not act upon it. In my opinion, waiting for the culture to change, on its own, over time, is a sure recipe for disaster. Those that are aware of the problem right now may make changes in lifestyle, but those that are not, or actively deny it, have zero motivation to change anything at all. I don't believe we have time to convince those people, because in the eyes of a denier, it doesn't exist, and in the eyes of a skeptic, it's always going to be "maybe it'll happen eventually" until it's too late. And let's not forget those that are completely uninformed. We have limited time to make these changes. Positive feedbacks will ensure the warming trend continues if we pass the point of no return (within a couple of decades I believe?). The longer we wait, the more severe the problem gets, and the faster we'd have to make those culture changes in order to avoid falling off the cliff, so to speak. We have a climate change denial lobby in the US. How many companies exploit the environment for profit, and would actively fight to continue doing so? China and India are ramping up fossil fuel use, and general standards of living. Recent events in Japan have shaken public and government faith in nuclear power (don't worry though, we have "clean" coal). We have jokes like Ethanol, and underdeveloped technologies like solar that realistically cannot meet current energy demands, period. There are forces actively working against climate change awareness, and we are to expect the culture to change for the better - on its own - before it's too late? Forgive me if I don't have that much faith in humanity at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:He didn't say "having too many kids is bad" he said "having kids is bad". Like he favors radical depopulation of the human race. Unless we are like 10x over the Earth's carrying capacity, that seems extreme. Reproduction is bad for the environment. You should take a look at this: http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf quote:"Table 3 compares the emissions attributable to an individual’s reproduction to the emissions that are avoidable through changes in household activities and transportation during the individual’s lifetime. Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle. For example, a woman in the United States who adopted the six non-reproductive changes in Table 3 would save about 486 tons of CO2 emissions during her lifetime, but, if she were to have two children, this would eventually add nearly 40 times that amount of CO2 (18,882 t) to the earth’s atmosphere." And for the record, the global population is unsustainable without fossil fuels (with current technology), unchecked global warming will result in climate change that causes massive depopulation, and I have been arguing against allowing said global warming to continue unchecked. In truth, I have been arguing for maintenance of population levels, not depopulation. Comprehension.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:That math is completely disingenuous. If one of those kids grows up and helps invent viable fusion power, does he get credit for the theoretically infinite CO2 emissions he prevents in the future? What if we revert to hunter-gatherer tribes, how much CO2 will he emit then? The assumptions behind such calculations are so many and varied that anything coming out at the end is practically worthless. GIGO. Um, that paper is research, not prophecy. Johnnie5 posted:While I definitely agree on the second point and obviously agree with the need to mitigate the effects of climate change, I think the first statement is unsupported. From my readings, current estimates of our carrying capacity vary wildly depending on the initial conditions, modeling methods, and assumptions about the rate of technological advancement or its limits. What studies and what numbers are you basing your statement on? The first statement is backed up by the study I linked (University of Oregon). Johnnie5 posted:But you said (like, in the same post) that "Reproduction is Bad". Not "excessive reproduction is bad", or "having more than 2 kids is bad", or even something as reasonable as "we need to work towards 0 population growth". No, you made a blanket statement which, in addition to not actually being what you meant, is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive. All reproduction is technically bad for the environment, given current trends. If you refer to the study, you will see that obviously Americans have a larger carbon footprint than the Chinese individually. However, as the global population grows, overall human-generated impact on the environment increases. Again, this is not me saying "you should not have kids" this is me saying "having kids impacts the environment negatively". All kids. Not "well, the first 19,000 tons don't count, so go ahead and have 2. But if you have 3, whoa buddy, we got problems!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The thing is, this should be really really obvious to anyone with half a brain. The problem is that the debate is increasingly being framed in moralistic terms, where Helping The Environment is in of itself a moral good and Hurting The Environment is a moral wrong. Which is a problem for precisely this reason; it keeps us from rationally analyzing the effects that things have. Well, this was pretty much my point when this whole argument got started. Nobody is going to be receptive to the idea that the fact they have kids (or want to have kids) is hurting the environment. But it's obviously making a huge negative impact on the environment in the long term. Clearly you're not going to convince people to stop reproducing, nor should anyone try, really. But that doesn't change the bottom line - it's a bad thing from a global warming perspective. But what's the harm in presenting these facts? Those that might be on the fence about having kids, or environmentally conscious individuals unaware of the impact having a child has? Maybe they choose not to have children when presented with the facts. Less reproduction is still good for us while climate change is an issue, and if it's of your own free will, it's your business. Of course, it's not like the media is going to pick that up and run with it. Nor the politicians. It's a recipe for instant pariah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I get what you're trying to say. However, there is a "harm in presenting these facts." The population discussion is always already racially and economically framed, because everyone knows which populations are producing the most children: poor and third world people. I wouldn't dispute that, but the report I linked differentiates between the impacts in various countries, based on standards of living. So where they say: quote:under the constant-emission scenario, an extra child born to a woman in the United States ultimately increases her carbon legacy by an amount (9441 metric tons) that is nearly seven times the analagous quantity for a woman in China (1384 tons) You can extrapolate that births to poor families have less impact than those to privileged families in the same country. So not only would they be assholes for framing it racially, they'd be scientifically incorrect. deptstoremook posted:I won't go so far as to accuse you of blowing a dog whistle, because your intentions are good, but you can't present facts in a vacuum. Here's an analogy: you could of course say "Processed food is more environmentally harmful than local whole foods and its consumption should be discouraged." True, perhaps. But there's already a frame, which is that poor people eat disproportionately more of the processed food in America. Thus, when you say "X should be discouraged," you're saying (without even saying it) "we should stop [Oppressed Group] from doing X." I won't argue that there wouldn't be a racial dialogue if "kids=bad" was shouted from the rooftops. Someone would undoubtedly become the mouthpiece for "them coloreds are ruinin' our evironment!" I think it's important to note, however, that average emissions per capita vary widely in each country, and it's easy to identify the source of the issue (it's not race): code:deptstoremook posted:On your second count, you're wrong unfortunately. The media in the US, for instance, regularly attacks "welfare queens" (read: people of color) for having too many children. Black women and Latinas, especially, are historically seen as hyperfertile, unable to control the amount of offspring they have. This has led to serious sterilization efforts in the past. Yes, I'm aware of the US's sordid history regarding covert sterilization, and I do realize that "welfare queens" would be the obvious target if this were actually discussed in the US media. It isn't, however, because the subject is distasteful - that was more my point than anything. I think it's interesting that having children makes a huge negative impact on the environment, and we're not willing to acknowledge it (as a population), because it's not what we want to hear. a lovely poster posted:While you're musing about the ethics of having children we are willfullly engaging in large-scale industrial projects (ex: tar sands) that emit more Co2 than a child could ever hope to. Simply put, there are bigger (and much easier) fish to fry than having babies if you want to start talking about ways for society to reduce our emissions. Look, you can argue that there are easier, more acceptable changes (like driving a Prius instead of an Escalade), but having a child has a bigger impact. And you can argue that industry has a bigger impact than anything your average individual does in his life, including having a child. It doesn't change the fact that having a child is one of the biggest negative impacts an individual can have on the environment. You could poo poo up the atmosphere by tying two Escalades together for your 400 mile daily commute for 50 years, and you wouldn't cause as much damage. (If you ask me for proof of this, I will internet punch you in the head) Sure, any "green" improvement at an individual level is helpful, but some have a larger impact than others. It just so happens that choosing not to have children is one of, if not the biggest. By a large margin. Also, are you arguing that shutting down large-scale industrial projects is "easier" fish to fry? Because 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:This is not what I'm talking about I know that, I should've said "one can argue" rather than "you" for that particular sentence. However, it's been argued several posts prior, so it's a valid point. a lovely poster posted:It's not though. Having a child is just not that bad for the environment. It's bad because our society emits a lot and you're lumping together all our emmissions/energy usage and going "see, we use too much per capita" It is, because you can't separate humans from their carbon footprint. We're directly responsible, regardless of how large that footprint is - even if global warming were magically eliminated tomorrow, carbon footprint is still a thing. Also, that study focuses on average individual contribution to carbon footprint, and the impact per child, not the impact per mother with child: quote:From the point of view of this paper, which focuses on the consequences of an individual’s reproductive behavior, it is useful to compare the carbon emissions added per child, rather than the emissions of females having the average number of children, among the different countries. a lovely poster posted:Yes, shutting down large-scale industrial projects is going to be easier (not easy) than convincing people not to procreate. Welcome to reality. My whole point was that convincing people not to procreate is an impossibility, despite the impact. You should probably read my posts before responding.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:None of this will ever happen. We really are doomed, aren't we. Pretty much. But hey, look at it this way... ...Ok I couldn't think of any positive angle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 13:21
|
|
|
Dusz posted:In every single post you come off as a melanholic manic depressive, I am surprised anyone has the patience to pretend to take you seriously. Yeah, I'm not really seeing "melancholic manic depressive" in his posts. He's simply speaking from a realistic perspective (it's unlikely that we have the time/will to make sufficient changes to alter the course of events leading to our extinction). Perhaps the reason you take issue with it is that he's saying things that you don't want to hear or consider? I also wanted to chime in on the "who put us in charge" comment. I think this is extremely relevant. Simply saying that we're the best (most evolved/advanced), so clearly we know what's best for the planet is arrogant. The only thing that being the most advanced species on the planet grants us is the largest responsibility to not gently caress things up for everyone and everything. And we've been chugging along towards loving things up for quite some time, and we're riding it straight into the ground. We've been extremely irresponsible in our actions, and we continue to be. Even if we think ourselves the masters of the universe, the only legacy we leave is ruinous. It's shameful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Actually uh, someone did say that:Balnakio posted:We did, when we smashed any competition and became the dominate species. (This was in response to "who appointed us rulers")
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Well it seems beyond debate that humans are in a unique niche in the Earth's history. We aren't rulers, but we have an insight and agency that no other species appears to have. Sure, and I wouldn't argue that. However, the belief that we're somehow more important seems to be fairly prevalent, but I find it interesting that it's mostly "we can do whatever we want" rather than "we should take responsibility for this". Profit dominates people, and that's what's truly dangerous. We don't do things because they're a good idea, or safe for everyone (including the planet), we do them because they're going to make money. I'm generalizing, but that's what drives this. Well, that and convenience, and the fact that we're kind of locked into the infrastructure we've got at this point if we're going to continue to be "civilized". It makes me wonder if it's truly healthy for us to be civilized. Can we act responsibly at the same time? It seems to me that most of the responsible decisions we make as a species don't get made until we've already painted ourselves into a corner. This time it'll be too late by the time concerted action is taken.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
faxmaster posted:That's not comforting though--that's just the same thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. It's like heaping a serving of guilt on top of your apocalypse pie. I'm not sure there is any comfort to be taken from any of it. There's no political will to enact change, because the money says "more fossil fuels", and the will of the politicians is bought by the money. Without some sort of miracle, there's only one ending, and it ain't happy. Just a matter of how fast these things occur at this point, not if. Do your best to enjoy life, and be prepared for the worst. Educate those that are willing to listen, and at least try with those that are not. Pray if that's your thing. Think long and hard about what the future of this planet will look like before you consider having children. In my opinion (and plenty will disagree I'm sure), comfort is denial. We've had too much denial already, and it serves no purpose. I accept it, and I do the best I can to educate those around me, and to enjoy life while I can. The climate will probably not get me in the end, but it will certainly change my life if I live long enough to see 2 degrees of warming. Or heck, 1.5 degrees. MrSmokes: We'd still probably be able to stop the warming trend (though maybe not reverse any of the effects that have taken place thusfar) if we quit cold turkey today. Perhaps that's a little comforting, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Something will happen, certainly, but my point is that the dots have not been connected to global collapse of modern civilization. Maybe somebody has and I'd be interested to see that. But the dominant story in the last few pages of the thread of total collapse of civilization and a catastrophic return to primitivism (which is itself an anachronistic concept) hardly seems inevitable to me. This seems like a pretty good starting point: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/05/01/204017/lester-brown-scientific-american-food-shortages-there-is-no-bo/ quote:Food scarcity and the resulting higher food prices are pushing poor countries into chaos. There's also a fair bit of research that points to decreases in crop yields as temperature increases. Rice crops for instance show a 10% decline per 1 degree C over 30 degrees. Add to that the potential for milder winters (increase in pests), larger temperature and dry/wet swings, and many poorer countries already grow rice and other crops in environments that are already pushing these limits. So, when yields drop, prices rise, and people go hungry from the double-whammy of "smaller harvest, higher import prices". When people starve, bad things happen. I don't think anyone can predict the exact path to collapse along this line, but the points above are hard to dispute. Without adequate intervention, things could go very, very south. This seems like a pretty good article as well (farming and climate change): http://www.worldwatch.org/node/572
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You've got your math all screwed up. Regulations = bad. No more, no less. You forgot to include the part about the loggers planting more trees, and the strip miners planting more um... coal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Smarter and cleaner are not ways to describe fracking. Maybe if the scale goes from "bad idea" to "really loving bad idea".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Can we just change the thread title to "Climate Change thread: tl;dr - Put Arkane on ignore" I almost (but not really) appreciate having Arkane around in this thread. He is a stark reminder of why we're in this mess, with no realistic chance to turn things around. Human ignorance is the problem. Profit at all costs is the problem. People like Arkane who cherry-pick data, crop charts, and then declare themselves right constantly work to perpetuate ignorance on the subject, and thereby allow the destructive profit-seeking to continue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:Ah, thanks for the information. The problem with the thawing of permafrost is the subsequent release of methane. It's a positive feedback loop that basically once triggered you could quit using fossil fuels cold turkey, and global warming would continue. Combine that with the fact we're not quitting (and are in fact accelerating use), and poo poo gets cranked up to 11. It is a very bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Methane_release_from_melting_permafrost_peat_bogs
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Except that fossil fuel accidents are much more catastrophic than any nuclear incident outside of Chernobyl. Pretty sure Centralia, PA has been on fire since 1962. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire Only 250 more years!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
disheveled posted:The idea that there has been no movement on the issue because of deniers is laughable. Because most people don't understand the severity of the problem, though? That makes sense. If people were sufficiently loud and angry, then there would actually be some push against the economic and political incentives that are preventing any meaningful policy changes. Half-heartedly supporting "green initiatives" is more than enough to satisfy voters. Disinformation is a problem, but we've painted ourselves into a corner as far as our dependence fossil fuels are concerned. It's not like we can quit cold turkey, even if the economy wasn't riding on it, despite the obvious need for such drastic measures. How many of us would starve to death within weeks without it? I'm going to hazard a guess - it's all of us. We're so addicted that even if there were the political will to enact change, we're probably so short on time to actually mitigate damage, that we'd effectively be slapping a band-aid on a severed leg. And to get that political will in the first place? Even if 100% of the population was convinced climate change is an apocalyptic problem, I don't believe we'd see change, since you still have to beat the fossil fuel industry at a fun game called "They have all the money". Frankly, the idea that there's still time to do something about it is wishful thinking. We haven't eliminated the biggest problem - those that stand to profit from maintaining the status quo. Nothing will change until that does.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Would another economic system solve the problem? Well, the one we have actively works against solving the problem, so I don't know about you, but that's kind of a red flag for me. Better alternatives include: Almost anything. There's no (immediate*) profit in lowering/eliminating emissions, or any other positive changes that could be made, so capitalism will inherently "ignore" the problem. And by ignore I mean spend billions on anti-climate change lobbying, exacerbating the problem. *The hidden profit from mitigating climate change is the large number of people that perhaps wouldn't be... you know... dead as a result of climate change. Therefore they are able to continue to buy goods and services. Only this quarter's bottom line matters though, so 7 billion dead people in 2096 means jack poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:and its not like climate change is a digital hosed/NOT hosed switch. even if catastrophic climate change is inevitable there is still the possibility of mitigation. Actually, it kind of is. Behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback Effectively, there is a breaking point that we're either teetering on, or have already gone over that results in runaway global warming. You can literally pass that point of no return, quit fossil fuel use cold turkey the next day, and without some sort of miraculous geo engineering effort, you're straight hosed, period. A big flaming stink posted:Like, do yall not see why these two beliefs are super harmful together? if I honestly believed that the opinion of the voting public cannot affect policy on climate change and that it will result in an "extinction event" then why bother doing any work to try to mitigate the impact? might as well enjoy the time i have left and not have kids. The voting public cannot affect policy when there is billions of dollars (nearly unlimited funds, truth be told) in opposition. It's moneyed interests that get politicians elected, and don't kid yourself, in the US both major parties are one and the same (minus particular brands of crazy). Politicians that do not toe the line simply won't be re-elected, and someone that will replaces them. Money=legislation is what it boils down to. So, what do we need to do? Remove the actual problem. In a sense, that's money dictating policy, but Capitalism in general drives us to that - it is the root cause. Those with more money dictate policy, thus creating more favorable conditions for themselves, which makes them even more money, and the problem perpetuates itself. A byproduct of this is the anti-climate change lobby, through which we all suffer in the end. But don't worry, the assholes with all of the money are enjoying the time they have left on their million dollar yachts, and their financial security even allows them to have children without worry. To me, if we cannot topple Capitalism and make changes for the good of all, yes, we're hosed. The question is how do you go about it when almost every aspect of our political system works for Capitalism, and what's left they're trying to do away with (Social Security, minimum wage (such as it is), the EPA, etc)?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its funny how many people who claim to support climate action are also smugly posting that it is impossible to ever adapt/mitigate. As it stands? Yeah, it's kind of insurmountable. It doesn't change the nature of the thing though. Mitigating climate change isn't about changing your lightbulbs or recycling more. It's not a personal lifestyle choice to "go green". The problem is bigger than that, and those that would see the problem swept under the rug in the name of higher profits are holding all the cards. Trabisnikof posted:A lot of people claimed 350 ppm was that tipping point. Also, that wikipedia article doesn't really prove that there is a tipping point we're approaching. Well, you can link right out of that wikipedia article to this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1 Which I think illustrates the problem fairly well. However, the 350/400ppm "tipping point"... I wouldn't really consider it to be the best metric for triggering these feedback loops, as despite 2014 being the hottest year on record globally, a good chunk of the US was quite a bit cooler than average temp. Local temperature is what will, for instance, melt the Siberian peat bogs. So while higher CO2 levels swing us to higher average temps globally, you specifically need temps high enough in Siberia to melt the peat bogs. Unfortunately, Siberia has been warming quite quickly. From the article: quote:Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws. Once something like this really gets going, it's isn't going to stop, and will in fact accelerate. Siberian peat bogs are believed to hold enough methane to increase warming by 10 to 25 percent, so while it'll take decades to thaw, it is still a considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions over that period.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:One of the most effective means of reducing the prevalence of tobacco use is by increasing federal and state excise tax rates. A 10% increase in the price of cigarettes can lead to a 4% reduction in the demand for cigarettes. This reduction is the result of people smoking fewer cigarettes or quitting altogether. Just taking this aside, this does not hold up if we're talking about something like a carbon tax, fuel tax, or even incentives for companies that attempt to mitigate climate change. For starters, smoking is optional (if addictive). People can cut back or quit without starving to death. Fossil fuel use is not so cut and dry. If prices go higher via tax or oil speculation, an individual might cut out a trip here or there to save on fuel costs, but the bulk of it remains the same - commute to work, pick the kids up from school, drive to the grocery, etc. From a corporate perspective, fuel costs for transportation are passed on to the consumer. From a carbon tax perspective, not much to get excited about there either. As long as there is money to be made, corporations will simply pass the increased costs on to consumers. Incentives for, let's call them "climate mitigation companies" is nice on paper, but if you haven't reined in fossil fuel use (which is the primary issue), you're pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than you can sequester. Yes, this is still an improvement, but unless you can sequester more carbon than we're dumping into the atmosphere, we're still backsliding here. Capitalism is ensuring things continue to spiral out of control. Don't look at it scientifically, but rather, logically: We need to cut back or eliminate fossil fuel use. Some of the largest corporations on the planet oppose that, because it is insanely profitable. Politicians live or die on campaign funds. Corporations are the primary source of campaign funds. Thus, there is a large anti-climate change lobby, funded in large part by these same corporate interests, that fund politicians that will enact favorable legislation. Politicians that do not toe the line will lose said funding, and most likely be replaced with someone that will. Because legislation favors continued fossil fuel use, these corporations will continue to rake in the dough, continue to fund their lobbies and misinform the public, and it becomes an endless cycle. The root cause here is captialism. If fossil fuels were not highly profitable, opposition to even admitting climate change is a problem, and breaking our dependence on fossil fuels would fade. Even then, it's a long, uphill battle to reduce/eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. Nuclear powerplants take time to build, so we must continue to use coal for a while. From a transportation perspective, electric vehicles still have limited range, and if everyone suddenly had one today, it would likely stress our power grid to the point of failure. I'll tell you what, if you want to keep capitalism (for the moment), here's an alternative: Strip every ounce of profit made by companies that exploit natural resources, or in any way damage the environment. Put that money towards building nuclear powerplants, battery R&D, electrical grid infrastructure improvements, public transportation improvements, and carbon sequestration R&D and implementation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:And once the increased cost of gasoline approaches/surpasses the cost of alternative fuels, the market will demand a switch to alternative fuels. Therefore, the statement: Yes, all of the ultra expensive alternative fuels that are just waiting for the right opportunity to make themselves known. If only gasoline prices were $10 a gallon, we'd be able to switch to some sort of (fictional) $9 a gallon alternative fuel, and things would get better! And let's not forget the fact that a carbon tax passed on to the consumer puts additional stress on our wonderful capitalist economy by burdening lower income individuals and families with additional taxes they already cannot afford, while some rear end in a top hat oil bigwig buys his 37th multi-million dollar house. Yes, the cheapness of fossil fuels has in large part created the mess we find ourselves in. However, higher priced fossil fuels does not end it. It just creates more problems, while we still rely on fossil fuels for a huge chunk of our energy and transportation needs. And yes, if the means of production were controlled by the workers instead of capitalists, we'd still be in the same place, with the same problem. Because what you're describing is still capitalism. The concept of profit has to be removed or the workers would simply maintain the status quo. A carbon tax that will just be passed on to the consumer does not do that. $10/gal gas is just as profitable as $4/gal or $2/gal gas, if not moreso. And you're right, this behavior (corruption, greed, exploitation of the environment/others) is not unique to capitalism, but capitalism encourages it. In fact, it glorifies it in the end, because capital controls politics. Those with the politicians in their pockets dictate the political/legislative landscape, creating ever more favorable conditions for themselves. In the US we maintain the illusion of choice in our 2-party system, but in reality, they're both playing for the same team, and it isn't "the people". We need to put a stop to that endless cycle, and the obvious target is removing profit from the pedestal it's been placed on. Capitalism has many flaws beyond the corruption of our political system, and the destruction of our environment, but if left to their own devices, the powers that be will continue to flush the environment down the toilet in the name of higher profits every single day. Until someone puts a stop to it. As I said, we're still buried neck deep in poo poo even if we reverse course politically, so in my opinion, we're hosed either way. But that doesn't change what needs to be done to at least make some effort to soften the crash landing we're all headed for. Until you uproot money in politics, and remove profit from the equation (preferably destroying capitalism in the process - multiple birds with one stone), no progress can be made.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:My point is that we can't fall into the trap of dismissing ideas because of those who bear them. Some dude who is a denialist AND who says that secondhand smoking doesn't kill is presenting two different ideas - one of them is fully backed by science (AGW), the other not (secondhand smoking killing). Errrrr... quote:The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke. http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.htm
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It is also likely that the planet will not be uninhabitable over the totality of its surface. The problem isn't just where humans can survive, but where crops can. Weather and temperature extremes brought on by climate change already have an impact on food crops. By the end of the century, things are likely to be dire indeed. http://irri.org/news/hot-topics/rice-and-climate-change quote:The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation forecasts that by 2050 rice prices will increase between 32 and 37% as a result of climate change. They also show that yield losses in rice could be between 10 and 15%. These days we start wars over natural resources, such as oil. In the grim dark future (the latter half of this century), there is only war over food. If you're in a position to, seriously reconsider having children. Not only do you avoid subjecting them to said grimdark future, but it's also probably the biggest environmentally positive decision one can make: http://www.livescience.com/9701-save-planet-kids.html quote:Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Batham posted:If you go that extreme as to put in 'don't reproduce', why don't you also add 'kill yourself preferably by jumping off a cliff or another less polluting way'. Depending on your current job or influence you're allowed to postpone it until you retire! You are one of two people, I believe, that are making the "eco idiot" statement in this thread. Everyone else gets it. We're not talking about overpopulation of a region here (unless the "region" is "Earth"). The issue is the carbon impact that children have. Especially when they live to adulthood in first world countries. Ice that off with having children of their own. Then those children have children. It's a snowball rolling down a hill, quickly becoming an avalanche. Having a child is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. If you don't throw the snowball, there can be no (personal) avalanche. This of course does not mean Children of Men, but rather encouraging people to think twice before deciding to have children, and at the very least, having fewer. But hey, if you're firmly in the "7 billion assholes isn't enough to truly gently caress this planet up once and for all" camp, then gently caress it, go hog wild.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
^^Personal avalanche. If I have two children, and they each have two children, and they each have... that's the avalanche I mean. No kids, no snowball. This obviously makes more impact in first world countries. Also, as an aside, why do we assume we need 7 billion assholes on this planet? I'm sure we can all agree that the more people on this planet, the faster we destroy it, right? How is growing or even maintaining our current population important or beneficial in the slightest?^^Batham posted:With your narrow minded view on things I'm surprised you actually use a computer when you aren't contributing to society in some way, considering how much energy they use and how wasteful their construction and disposal is. I'd venture a guess I can go through many, many PC's without making the same carbon impact having a child does. Having children remains a choice, and a poor one at that when taking the environment into account, despite the other excesses and wastes of our self-centered, greedy, self-destructive society. Film at 11:00. Av027 fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:So? I'm sure you can go through many, many children without making the same carbon impact building a coal plant does. I choose not to have coal plants. poo poo, that did nothing. Again, choosing not to have children is a positive environmental decision that individuals can achieve. If you find a way to wish away coal plants, let me know though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And can you choose to not use computers? Me personally? Not really, I work in IT. But some can, yes, and some people do. However, it won't make the same impact choosing not to have children does. I would be very surprised if an individual could influence the environment in a more impactful way than whether or not they choose to have children. Again, here's what I posted on the last page: http://www.livescience.com/9701-save-planet-kids.html quote:Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible. I know the concept "having kids is bad, here's why" is unpalatable, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. For some, choosing not to have children will make sense. For others, they will have 9 children no matter how dire things get. It's a personal choice, and whether you bring the environment into that choice is your own decision. Having children is bad for the environment, full stop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Humanity is the only thing that makes the environment worth anything. Personal opinion, of course. That you refer to it as "7 billion assholes" I think is rather telling. You're not wrong. We, as the most capable intelligent species on this planet have a responsibility to protect and preserve this planet not only for ourselves, but for every living creature on it. Instead, we strip it bare like we plan to discard it when we're done. Humanity is both the best and the worst thing about this planet. Forgive me if I choose to cut humanity zero slack for being total fuckups when it comes to protecting and preserving the Earth. Zombie #246 posted:Okay but what if the kid you have is the one that leads the eco-revolution, that seems like a pretty good carbon negative impact And what if the kid you have is the next Hitler? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:We're the only species which even has the capacity to conceptualize that obligation, and ultimately we're fallible creatures of meat ourselves, loosely organized into quarreling and competing groups. I think your expectations are too high, and your judgements too harsh - particularly when it comes to suggesting that the best thing would be for great portions of our species as a collective entity to simply die off. Killing humanity off wasn't my suggestion. I did ask why we felt that maintaining or even growing our 7 billion population was important or beneficial, but have not seen any compelling evidence to support either position. However, having a smaller population can easily be linked with lessened environmental impact. Again, I'm not advocating the gas chamber for 2/3 of the population or anything, but rather trying to sort out why people think we need more people, especially considering we're headed towards a massive culling of our population in part due to our present numbers, if things do not change. Having more children will in fact accelerate our demise if we maintain the status quo. It's a sensitive subject, to be sure, but this isn't a difficult concept to understand, even if it personally offends someone. Even if you believe that our obligation is to ourselves first, you must realize that pollution, shrinking biodiversity, deforestation, overfishing, climate change, etc - all brought on by our actions - is evidence that we aren't responsible enough to handle it. Properly looking out for #1 should primarily involve habitat preservation. What good is the latest iTurd if your family is starving? At the rate we're going, by 2100 we'll be dropping like flies and wondering why. If my judgments are harsh it is only because my expectation - to not intentionally kill ourselves off - is, incredibly, beyond us.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Weirdly, the focus of various articles on the paper is on the fact that sea level rise is "accelerating", but the acceleration finding is not statistically significant (.001 inches per year in acceleration). Just goes to show how easily you can spin a story I guess. Weirdly, you don't seem to have much success spinning your story. Must not be that easy after all. 
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Arkane posted:There are question marks & heated debate around many aspects of climate change, including climate sensitivity, predictions of the future, impact on the oceans, and impact on extreme weather events If this "heated debate" you talk about exists, it's about whether the impacts will be "extremely bad" or "all life is exterminated bad". There is no "impacts are minimal" or "no impact whatsoever" on the scale, which is what you seem to Serious question - Are you a paid climate denial shill? To contribute, another ice gone by 2100 "controversy". Will it be 70% or 99%? quote:If greenhouse-gas emissions continue to rise, glaciers in the Everest region of the Himalayas could experience dramatic change in the decades to come. A team of researchers in Nepal, France and the Netherlands have found Everest glaciers could be very sensitive to future warming, and that sustained ice loss through the 21st century is likely.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:I'll preface this by saying that this is a very, very minor quibble, but an important one, I feel. Based on some of the things I've seen you post in this thread, Av027, I'm sure we'd agree on probably 90% of each other's opinion of climate science and what it implies. Yeah, I would say our position on the science and consequences of our actions (and lack thereof) is similar. I suppose as far as the extermination of life, I should probably clarify that I mean that as ecosystems disintegrate, so too does life within that ecosystem. Maybe humans can adapt to exist on some scale (albeit at much lower population levels), but most species do not have that luxury. When their environment changes significantly, or food source disappears, etc, they will become extinct. Let's not forget too, that seemingly small impacts, such as colony collapse disorder (bees), can have devastating chain reactions. This is already impacting agriculture, but if it were to become epidemic, it would be disastrous. Will life still exist somewhere? Of course. But I don't believe there will be much of what currently exists that makes it in the long run. Your Sledgehammer posted:I think it's high time that this thread made it an official policy to just ignore Arkane. We know his schtick, we know it's tired old bullshit, so let's move on. Responding or giving him any attention at all only encourages him to post more, so it's best that no one respond to him at all. Let him shout into the darkness while an honest discussion of climate change happens around him. Even the most science illiterate goon who wanders into the thread would be able to see through the lies, I'd hope, and it's not worth degrading the discourse in here just to poke holes in Arkane's fucktard balloon over and over. If he gets ignored for a few weeks on end, he'll give up and hopefully never come back. I couldn't agree more, and this is basically what I'm getting at. I think most of us feel that we want to correct him, disprove the lies, and ultimately prevent goons that are illiterate on the subject (I've seen plenty that have wandered in here) from taking what Arkane claims as fact. But I think it's folly to continue to attempt to change Arkane's viewpoint (one that I honestly believe he is paid to espouse), as he is obviously not going to change his tune. I also believe that new posters wandering in to the thread can sort it out for themselves in short order by simply reading a page or two - especially since we also reduce the pseudoscience noise by eliminating responses to Arkane, making it easier for a new poster to understand the issues at hand. Arkane is toxic to the thread, and generating several pages of responses to him "proves the controversy". There is no controversy. There's just some rear end in a top hat making GBS threads in the pool. Engaging hasn't worked, it's time to ignore. Av027 fucked around with this message at 14:38 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 13:54
|
|