|
GlyphGryph posted:Using it as an excuse to not do any of the things that absolutely need to be done to make things stop getting worse is the hazard. Thinking it's enough. Especially when you're not even doing it. Ooh I get it now, you're saying excess focus on carbon mitigation is a problem because it is more important to focus on removing and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, right? I mean yeah obviously if we could develop new effective carbon capture systems it would be great. But mitigation is much easier for obvious reasons and therefore offers greater potential for staving off the highest near-term climate projections. Remember there is some natural sequestration that goes on. More important to protect forests that stand today than plant new ones tomorrow, imo. I think it is a fair and practical to emphasize mitigation, but it is certainly arguable. I'd rather focus on what is known to be possible and effective today however. shrike82 posted:Yeah, to be fair I guess it shouldn't be surprising that someone is sanguine about GCC if they're pro-coal at the same time. Trabisnikof is extremely anti-coal, like loving half his posts in this thread are about eliminating the use of coal, or describing the decline of coal powered electric generation. What are you trying to say?
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Okay I think we agree on the most important things Glyphgryph, however I don't think even the most successful carbon sequestration scheme could ever work without emission reduction. It just doesn't conceivable to me that the physics or economics of it could work, it will always be easier to release carbon than it is to package it up and store it somewhere, there's no way to make sequestration literally free. Therefore preventing emissions should be more efficient than sequestration. However of course we should pursue research and continue trying to develop more efficient methods, and promote current practical sequestration activity like reforestation. Unfortunately there aren't a whole lot of paths towards succeeding in our climate mitigation goals, period. Still every bit helps!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You're not wrong, as in, its a substantial source of GHG's. Of all sources of carbon its probably the hardest to tackle because of cultural reasons and demanding a change in people's life styles, that is to say, there is much more low hanging fruit. Moving from fossil fuel electricity to non carbon electricity doesn't actually demand a change to people lifestyles and certainly nothing as personal as our diets. Electricity is probably an infinitely easier problem to solve on a societal level and we find that horrifically difficult. You don't tackle any source of emissions by just tut-tutting individuals and trying to reason them into changing their behavior. Nobodies should have their steak and eggs taken away from them. Of course the incentive structures that lead to persons habitually eating steak and eggs for breakfast, that's what you target. Of course there are a lot of entrenched interests capable of stymieing any such effort, but I don't anybody here is under the illusion agricultural policy is driven by rationality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I am feeling much better, thank you. Though my point still stands.  I take it back, I'm glad your here and not dead. I just get frustrated sometimes talking about climate change with people who have given up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Well yes, as far as I know the technology requires/assumes significant insect/larvae farming for feed, and presumably the insect farming comes from mostly waste or low-grade/unusable vegetable matter. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about this, because I don't, and I'm certainly not going to pretend this is easy or will even be done, but it does exist as a potential alternative to mass monoculture fossil-fuel driven farming. Insect farming? Lol no you feed them as much corn as they can stand and supplement with fish meal or chicken byproducts. Fish are some of the most efficient sources of animal protein, especially freshwater fish like tilapia or catfish which naturally eat mostly plants anyway. Those caged tuna herds however are going to be produce less protein per unit of input.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
There's evidence expectations of sea level rise and greater storm severity is beginning to discourage construction in vulnerable areas. If we were seriously willing to reform federal flood insurance we could probably prevent more harm, but that's not very likely politically. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Anti natalism is legit retarded
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Watch as Earth slowly dies over 30 years! I recommend zooming in on west virginia or Wyoming to check out some surface mining.  It's unmistakable, just look for the patches resembling a bacterial colony in a petridish.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissions They never existed in the first place except in your own personal delusions
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Why red states? I don't get it. I listened to the Cliff Notes version on the Ted radio hour. The idea seems sound, and certainly land management today is real hosed up. Walking through supposedly good grazing land in California or the montane west can be real depressing, because so much of it is so badly damaged, and there seems to be so little done about it. However although I like the concept, the talk set off a few red flags, particularly when he mentions other managers have had trouble replicating his results. I don't know who is wrong and you'd probably have to look at the actual studies in question, but it seems like there's not universal acceptance of his theories. Also he does mention methane emissions briefly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Land management is really important for erosion, biodiversity, and a lot of other things, but its not so great at sequestration. By the time it was effective humans would have evolved into something else. When you press hard on the car's gas pedal you are literally undoing hundreds of thousands of years of biomass compaction. Today good land management is the only sequestration system that works.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Which is why the TED talk is dumb and we should not promote turning Africa's grasslands into cattle ranches. Most of Africa's grasslands are already cattle ranches
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:That depends on the density of cattle needed to call an area a "ranch" and how many trees per hectare it takes to distinguish savanna grassland from wooded savanna; if "most of Africa's grasslands are already cattle ranches", the guy in the TED talk is using bogus figures to promote the creation of a situation that already exists. Another thing to note is that raising cattle for food is different from allowing an equal mass of wild animals to browse the same area, as the fertility is taken from the farmed area and ends up in cities and then the sea when the area is farmed, while the fertility is cycled with lesser losses in the natural state; turning [the remaining] grasslands into ranches will deplete the soil eventually. His theory is that by using extremely high density, short duration, low frequency grazing to mimic natural mass migrations that no longer occur in small fragmented parks or pastureland you can improve soil health and forage quality over what is achievable with other management strategies. It sounds ecologically plausible but I don't know if it works in practice. I'm not sure what your point is but it doesn't really sound like you're seriously addressing his theory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:On one hand I am sure I am but on the other, isn't that the logical response to our bleak future? Imagine if your parents or grandparents had taken this position given the probability of Thermonuclear war during their life times. You don't have to face every issue logically. Logically there is no need for any attachment, such needs extend from another part of our psyche.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Mozi posted:
I hope the krill are ok 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The line between "reduce" and "totally eliminate" looks pretty broad, idk what kind of idiot would conflate the tw-- I feel like these discussion often do go bad, but its usually because people start talking past each other. The challenge is seguing successfully from empirical observations, to questions of policy, then morality, and finally to individual decision making. If a nation reduced its consumption of grain fed red meat, it would reduce carbon emissions. A nation looking to reduce carbon emissions ought therefore to adopt policy disincentivizing consumption of these products. Someone feeling they have a moral obligation to reduce there own carbon emissions might feel they should act themselves to reduce their own consumption, but most people acknowledging their limited culpability might feel justified in only taking moderate steps, we can't very stop climate change by ourselves after all. The same problems happen anytime the thread segues into questions of personal decision making, whether the issue is at hand relates to cars, meat, children, suburbs or travel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Yeah, it goes from "hey, if you're concerned about the environment, climate change, habitat destruction and water use, maybe consider vegetarianism or veganism?" to "gently caress YOU VAYGUN, FOR EVERY BACON YOU DON'T EAT I'LL EAT FIVE" within about, let's say, ten posts. I'll bet that it will happen in this thread too. Seen it happen in the CanPol thread and the Tech Industry thread. You know if you actually want to convince anyone of anything maybe you shouldn't resort to ridiculous strawmen before anyone who disagrees with you even bothers showing up. You have already thrown up your hands and given up everyone who disagrees with you as irreconcilable before even beginning to talk, so why do you think anyone would give you the benefit of the doubt?Maybe you should just go back to reddit where you can find yourself some pleasant little vegan safe space where the mean ol' beefeaters won't scare you. Right now you're embodying everything that is wrong today with America's climate discourse. quote:The issue is that until you actually do adopt the personal choice, though, you'll always be able to offload the responsibility elsewhere, "I don't have make a personal decision to eat less meat and dairy because the government should be disincetivizing animal products for me!" and if governments even attempt to think about wanting to try that, people say "Why is the government deciding what I can and can't eat? What about my personal choices! " To say nothing of the industry pressure on governments. If you want to reduce your own emissions so bad why don't you go kill yourself already. Or you can accept we don't have unlimited culpability for all emissions, and accept that you aren't going to moralize your way out of systemic problems. I'm not even sure what you are arguing right now Squalid fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm for both. But let's not pretend that his mass plan that he's pushing to make everyone vegan (and I'm assuming without GMOs and Protein considering the guy he is citing) is insane. Come on man, you're being totally unfair. peter banana has never pushed any plan to make everyone vegan, rather he has argued we have a personal responsibility to reduce the carbon intensity of our diet, and advanced what's actually a fairly modest plan to re balance agricultural subsidies. This is not insane, even if you disagree it. I think it is immentantly reasonable, and desirable, if perhaps not that likely to occur in the near future, but certainly worth fighting for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Mozi posted:While I fully support removing ridiculous subsidies and making the true costs of meat more apparent, given where we are in time versus climate change and the current political landscape, I don't think you could call that a valid plan if being valid means it has a meaningful chance of success. By this standard there are no valid plans to address climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I mean, someone asked for clarity about something I had actually experienced and I described it? Like, what I described literally happens to me? All the time? The fact that anyone is suggesting that I think veganism should be "enforced" in any way is already starting the "talking past each other." You know I'm kindof sorry for dogpiling you with everyone else, I probably agree with you more than I do posters like CommieGIR and Mozi. Its just that you managed to rustle my jimmies with your post about combative meat eaters ruining the discussion, because by starting the conversation that way you were guaranteeing that someone would feel personally attacked and hence the conversation immediately go to poo poo. I'm a serial on-again off-again vegetarian and the carbon intensity of my diet is absolutely one of the reasons I try and minimize meat consumption, even if I'm not strict. I just wish everyone could discuss these issues with clear heads on both sides. Convincing Americans to eat less meat is easy: make it more expensive and provide affordable alternatives, especially to groups at risk of nutritional deficits like children and the elderly. I think American OUGHT do this, although I don't think it is LIKELY in the present context, but then what climate mitigation is? We must adopt a multimodal approach to mitigation and fight like hell for everything that might work. Some means won't, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting for and we might surprise ourselves in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:This paper is what I've based this belief on: http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf I read that plus the 2007 study by Toon et al and another paper critical of that study a couple years ago. The immediate climatic effect of any nuclear conflict is determined primarily by the quantity of particulate matter released and its residency time in the atmosphere. The main point of contention is how much material is going to get injected into the stratosphere where it can persist for a long time and be dispersed throughout the atmosphere producing a strong cooling effect. This report reflects the most pessimistic assumptions regarding how much material could be injected into the stratosphere. Imagine you're feeding tinder into a small fire, sometimes a small spark or whatever will catch an updraft and fly up but it falls out quickly. Build a bonfire and the drafts can be strong enough to send sparks and burning leaves up over your head before they fall out. Sending material into the stratosphere on the other hand requires requires a firestorm, or a huge blaze covering an entire city with monster temperatures, lots of fuel burning for a long time. Crude estimates of particulate release in nuclear wars can be extrapolated from observations of WWII firebombing attacks like the one that destroyed Dresden. However modern cities aren't built like pre-war Germany or Japan and we can't expect them to burn the same way, which matters a lot. Some researchers believe its much more difficult to ignite a firestorm in modern cities greatly reducing how much particulate can be be released. Unfortunately until someone nukes a modern city there's no way to really know. It also matters where the bombs land. The worst case scenario requires detonations primarily over fuel rich targets like cities, if India executes a successful first strike and blows up the Pakistani missile silos in some featureless desert it won't produce the same cooling effect. I also remember there's some funny points in that report regarding predictions for global famine, in particular I don't think it accounted for changes in the demand for agricultural goods following a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, which I think would go a way to alleviate climate related supply reductions. So it probably isn't as dire as that report suggests, but we don't really know. Some serious researchers were terrified Saddam would unleash a petroleum-winter by firing the Kuwaiti oil fields, but it only ended up producing modest regional cooling around the Persian Gulf. That there was no clear consensus regarding the climatic consequences of that event should show you just how much uncertainty surrounds our predictions on these topics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Agricultural productivity is expected to increase due to improvements in technology, increased capital, training, mechanization etc. Increased agricultural productivity is a safe assumption in the near term because it has been the norm for the last 100 years and in most of Africa it could be achieved through the application of existing methods.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The importance of reducing human population if society has shifted to greatly reduced levels of green house gas production is marginal though. I'm not disagreeing that it's better or non exclusive, it's that as a "serious" solution it's worthless on a theoretical (it doesn't solve the real problem) and practical level (it takes far too long for this to have a major effect). It's much more similar to personally abstaining from red meat than something like replacing all coal plants with nuclear plants. It seems like you are saying "in the event society reaches a point at which it produces no carbon emissions, total human population will not effect green house gas production, therefore solutions should focus on reaching the point of zero per capita emissions rather than on efforts which limit emissions in present conditions." Is that a correct interpretation of your argument? I'm sorry to try and rephrase you, I just think this subject often suffers because people talk past each other and I want to be sure I understand your point. First I think it's dangerous to assume we are going to reach a point where individuals have a marginal or negligible carbon forcing in the next 100 years. If that does not happen, reducing population growth is going to produce lower total emissions. I'm not sure what you mean by "serious" solutions. In terms of addressing the "real' problem, which I would describe as net carbon emissions, reduced population growth certainly would contribute to solving the problem in foreseeable conditions. For example even if we reach a point where energy generation becomes carbon neutral, extremely implausible in the next 50 years imo, increasing people are still likely to require the replacement of tropical forest with agricultural land which has a major carbon forcing. Regarding whether it is "serious" solution or not, i.e. whether it is plausible top-down policy directed at reducing fertility and first-world immigration are likely to be implemented, I would say no it is not. However it is hard to find any serious policy to address climate change by that definition, and even a given policy towards fixing climate change is implausible it is still valuable at least to describe the situation with open eyes. Also I think you are thinking on too short a time frame. Any effort to address climate change will necessarily be inter-generational, and government policy can have surprisingly swift effects. For example following a concerted effort to implement family planning, Iran drastically reduced its fertility rate after 1989, which today sits at about 1.9, in contrast with other near by countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We must take a long term perspective. There is no other choice. Note I'm not advocating for brutal Chinese style forced abortions, but we should at least be realistic about what effects such policies have had.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:it will be interesting to see how humans and other animals evolve to deal with climate change. i predict most mammals lose all their body hair (too hot) and that many will adapt to amphibious lifestyles (webbed feet, dorsal nostrils etc) More likely mammals and birds would become smaller, as higher temperatures make thermoregulation easier for endotherms at small body sizes. Conversely reptiles are likely to become larger, and more common. Drastic climate change might lead to more amphibious adaptations, but in previous mass extinctions existing air-breathing aquatic mega-fauna have been especially prone to extinction. Their relatively small populations and position high on the food chain make cetaceans and pinnipeds, like their predecessors the mosasaurus and ichthyosaurs, particularly vulnerable. Extinctions are just an opportunity for new evolution of course, so one would expect other orders to replace what is lost. Reef building organisms also handle extinction events badly, and it is not unprecedented for reefs to disappear entirely for tens of millions of years, until something completely different can replace what was lost. Mammals aren't losing their hair though lol that's silly what kind of dumb mammal doesn't have hair all over its body
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:That's certainly fair! Cool post that will be completely ignored by the threads regular defeatists and nihilists because it doesn't fit into their preexisting world view, just as climate science is ignored by deniers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
rscott posted:How many communist revolutions succeeded without violence because realistically central planning with a primary focus on ecological stewardship across the entire industrialized world the only way forward if 2 or 3C is the goal realistically there's never been a communist revolution with a primary focus on ecological stewardship anyway Forever_Peace posted:Hey man what's with the ad hominems here? How do you know this isn't also me? I agree with you more or less, but I'm just as frustrated with this thread as Oxxidation. It has become dominated by teleological narratives of climate change that have little more basis in science than the worst denialist nonsense. I mean my god we can hardly go a page without someone sincerely recommending homesteading as a rational response to climate disasters, a response wholly lacking any basis in evidence. Apocalyptic narratives of civilization collapse are derived more from popular eschatology than climate science, and I dearly wish this thread didn't talk about it as much. Squalid fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Homesteading "Ima defend muhself 24/7 with me gun" fantasies haven't come up that recently, has it? Perhaps not every page but for example just three pages ago: Crazycryodude posted:Yeah the survivalist compound in a remote mountain valley still sounds like the best long-term idea. I think Crazycryodude is exaggerating intentionally for effect but he's followed by another poster who treats the idea seriously, instead of as utterly ridiculous as it deserves. Minge Binge posted:What are you suggesting here? That we're making it sound worse than it is? Maybe you should follow the thread a little better and check out some recent papers, because it's getting worse. poo poo is Accelerating. I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem we are facing. I am suggesting that apocalyptic fears are often derived as more from traditional Protestant Eschatology, loose interpretations of Marxist dialectical-materialism and the contradictions of Capitalism, and Cold War era survivalist literature than actual scientific efforts to understand climate change and its effects on society and the economy. I'm not sure why you believe social change is a lost cause, but looking at the last 100+ years of history I can't say I agree. I don't think anyone is going to fight a revolution to prevent climate change, so I have no choice but to fight for change via other means.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:So what is it you think will happen when Pakistan and India run out of food, and when Europe enters an ice age in which nobody can grow food anymore and Coastal regions all over the world are submerged in yearly hurricanes that they're not prepared for and half of Siberia spontaneously erupts in a fountain of Methane that lasts for years and heats up the planet so fast that nobody even knows what hit em and also the whole world smells like rotten eggs for 10 years. I certainly do not know, but I also know for certain that nobody else does either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Another green benefit to living in a city setting as opposed to an isolated country setting is the poop situation. Being on city sewer seems like a better solution than an off the grid composting toilet. With city sewer your poop goes to a treatment plant where the bacteria in it is killed, I don't know if a guy or a family living 50 miles away can treat his poop as efficiently and reuse it as fertilizer without it going through a sewage treatment facility. A composting toilet can be perfectly effective, so long as it is properly designed and maintained (lol). Don't overestimate the efficacy of municipal sewer systems, in many cities your toilet water goes through the same pipes as the runoff which enters you storm drain and even a few millimeters of rain can be enough to force the system to overflow into neighboring streams and rivers. Also while treatment facilities are great at removing a lot of stuff and in the United States you could safely drink the water coming straight out of the sewage processing plant, they sometimes still carry a lot of phosphorous and nitrogen and so have serious negative environmental effects.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:At this point political violence is the most expedient answer and it probably won't work either. Unfortunately political violence has a high carbon intensity
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Yeah, although I'll admit that I think this is a topic where there's a really fine line between realism and pessimism. Lots of people understandably have difficulty accepting that maybe this is going to affect their lives and maybe that's unavoidable, but that doesn't mean that literally nothing matters or that we can't at least try to mitigate the effects. This is a problem where the damage is basically unbounded on the upper end, so it can always be worse and it's always going to be worthwhile to at least try to act in whatever small way you can. For me I draw the line where I can see real scientific evidence. For example when Minge Binge say he cannot imagine a future in which savings will be useful, a future in which the present economy has changed so drastically as to be unrecognizable, but does not present any sort of evidence based reasoning through which he came to these conclusions, I can safely conclude that his advice to avoid saving is not grounded in any kind of rational consideration of the real economic impacts of climate change. We do not know how bad it might get, which is reason to be terribly cautious, but assuming things will necessarily be as bad as we can possibly imagine is just as absurd as the rosiest of climate denier bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The time to vote was over 16 years ago, on November 8, 2000. That was the last chance voting had at making any real difference in the world with regard to climate change. Even if Bernie Sanders was elected it wouldn't matter now, it's far far too late. Too late for what, specifically? You should try and think about the impacts of climate change as actual discrete phenomena as real climate scientists do, and think of what specific impacts you are expecting and their likelyhood. Probably you will find there's a lot of difference that might be made, and we barely know what the hell they are let alone that it's too late.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:edit; post was pointless and antagonistic That was supposed to be this thread lol. Things were better when we still had Arkane and other legit denialists posting. Without a common enemy it's inevitable that we'll tear ourselves apart.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Bees are not going extinct except for some wild species that are completely irrelevant w/r/t food production as their populations have already declined so much as to make them 'commercially extinct' in the parlance of fisheries science and most were probably irrelevant any way due to reliance on ecosystems like marsh lands that are beings eliminated for other reasons.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Ironically declining honeybee populations could actually reduce thee probability of bee extinction as they actively compete with the wild species most at risk.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:There's no practical technical solution to heat/humidity going past the human heat transfer threshold in a population center. If going outside without air conditioning means entering a literally unlivable environment whenever there's a heat wave, then the town/city in question is simply going to disappear. There are however behavioral responses that mitigate harm. Modern regions exposed to seasonally dangerous average temperatures shift activity away from noon and towards nighttime. This is not theoretical. In places like Iraq it is already the status quo in summer. If minimum temperatures were to shift towards something unlivable now then you'd have a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I've been to the tropics with high humidity 34°C at night. I was going to say something skeptical but then I looked at the climate in Dallol, Ethiopia, the place with the highest average temperature, and their average lows in July are 31.8 C so, yeah not much room for that to increase safely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Yeah, if he's a Free Market-type then you'll need to give him a crisis of faith before you can get anywhere. I think this is an unproductive way to deal with these conversations, as generally people don't have crises of faith very often. Conspiratiorist posted:In the UK climate change denial is bundled in with anti-EU/anti-globalism sentiment, because that's where environmental regulations come from. I think understanding this ideological bundling phenomena is key to having a productive conversation. Deltasquid's acquaintance thinks global warming is a scheme designed to justify taxes. This and the comments about libertarianism imply that in his friend's mind, the existence of anthropogenic climate change has somehow become entangled in an entirely separate argument about proper government and economic policy. There's no inherent reason these ideas should be correlated, just as there's no reason to expect belief in global warming to be related to a belief in the morality of abortion. However these sorts of political ideas often become conflated for reasons of identity and instrumentality (i.e. whether it is useful to believe something). We all like to pretend we came to our beliefs through the application of pure reason, but the truth is we often inherit them as a set. In order to have a productive fact based conversation, I find it to be easiest if I can dissociate the issue from the wider politicized context. You're not going to convince a lifelong Tory to suddenly become a Corbynista in one 15 minute conversation and it isn't worth trying. However if you want to talk about ACC, if you can keep the subject laser focused on temperature, data, scientific practice etc, and absolutely stay away from issues like taxation that might be truly driving their position, you can get a lot farther. This can be surprisingly easy to do if you can manage to 'speak the language' of their ideology so to speak, by framing the issue in terms that are coherent to their ideological position. Following that respect I think you can get surprisingly far. Getting combative or even going into the conversation with the goal of 'winning' by convincing him to take your position is of course a fast track to failure and ideological retrenchment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:So has anyone here gone vegan or even attempted to significantly reduce their animal product intake? I've been considering it more and more heavily lately, and it is funny how emotionally hard it is to consider it as opposed to seeing myself buy solar panels or an electric car or something. I go on and off meat, imo the trick is just easing into the diet and not sweating the odd roast served by grandma. Reduce animal protein consumption in phases so there's no dramatic break that could push you to relapse. So start by eliminating meat at breakfast and lunch, for example by replacing a ham sandwich with peanut butter and jelly or red bean vegetarian chili. Instead of milk with cereal try oatmeal or grits with water and a spot of butter. Once you've done that start introducing vegetable entrees into dinner once a week, and then increase their frequency as it begins to feel more natural. So try making tacos but use black beans instead of beef, or experiment with other dishes with which you are already familiar. The key to making good vegetarian dishes is getting them really savory, so season generously with soy sauce, bouillon or stock. If you like vegetables try incorporating those with naturally high umami like mushrooms and eggplant into your dishes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think you've hit both a problem and its solution on the head. I've suspected this for a while. A name change couldn't hurt at least
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 05:52
|
|