|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:
If it makes you feel better, this is the result of an el nino event and not really climate change
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:We need to change all of it. We need a paradigm shift, and a big one. Luckily, this isn't impossible at least from a historical point of view. But there needs to be a catalyst, and what that might be I don't know. That catalyst, like most catalysts that have spurred change, will probably involve a lot of death and suffering. Not just any death and suffering mind you -- but the type of death and suffering that encompasses all economic classes. I mean, it took the deaths of many high-profile rich people (and hundreds of not-rich-people) on the world's biggest ocean liner for us to collectively decide that hey, maybe having lifeboats for everybody on board would be a good idea. I expect that we will have a similar catalyzing event for climate change in the (near-ish) future. That is, a singular rapid-onset disaster that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the climate is getting really loving weird, and, simultaneously, causes a lot of casualties indiscriminate of class or status. An event that people, decades in the future, will point to as the moment when humanity 'woke up' to the problem. Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, I think, were harbingers of such an event, but neither of them were as catalyzing for climate change policy as the Titanic was for maritime safety. Like I said, it would have to be a sudden onset event. Perhaps an incredibly powerful storm that forms so suddenly that it prevents evacuation. In any case, humanity only seems to collectively change course once something really, really dramatic and intolerable occurs to rich people. sitchensis fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:You weren't stressed upon initially learning about climate change? Pretty big gap between that and mental illness. Mentally, for me, it feels like a very dull, intermittent, low-grade anxiety that infrequently pops up every now and then. Usually when I encounter an article about new monthly temp records being broken or coral reefs being bleached. Or when someone mentions offhand about how unseasonably warm the winter has been. It also sometimes derives from my own experience. For example, the disconnect I felt between my "expectations" for a winter season that are in line with what I have experienced over the course of my lifetime, and the "reality" of something like last winter, where I was outside in a t-shirt in February when I should have been bundled up and trudging through snow drifts. It can be unsettling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:The Middle East is literally toast, let's move on and discuss how much of a migrant crisis that will cause. Luckily we can look to Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, Canada for an instructive example. Exceptionally dry conditions and high temperatures have caused an out of control wildfire that has since forced the evacuation of the entire city. It is unprecedented. The town is also ground zero for Canada's oil extraction industry so there might be some kind of irony there or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:I have a question for the thread: Funny enough, I just finished a major research paper as part of my masters that touched on this subject. The best all-in-one sort of book I've found about the topic is Climate and Human Migration: Past Experiences, Future Challenges by Robert McLeman. He, like you, points out that currently we just don't know what will happen when poo poo really starts to hit the fan. However, past events involving rapid-onset and slow acting environmental degradation can be instructive. In his book he provides lots of examples and some good summaries of current knowledge. Some of his own research on the experience of Okies who moved to California during the dust bowl is really fascinating, too. Other than that, I'd suggest looking at authors who have studied linkages between environmental degradation/resource depletion and conflict. Homer-Dixon comes to mind in this respect.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Are there any good resources or papers regarding hypothetical Malthusian and climate-change related migrant crises mid-century that would dwarf the current ones and (possibly) bring forth first-world societal collapse? Can these fears be alleviated or solved somehow? yes but give me like, a few hours
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Haven't read up on this topic at all, would you mind giving a short synopsis of your take on this based on your work with these sources? Goes for the both of you, really. I find this issue very interesting if not completely central to the topic of the thread and I'd love to see some more discussion on it. Sure. I just finished the program and I doubt anyone will actually ever read my paper, so might as well post about it on a dead gay comedy forum. Billions displaced! Millions dead! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!  There has been a lot of popular press about the future tidal wave of human migration that climate change may cause. While to a certain extent it is true that climate change will force people to relocate, the actual reality of the situation is much more nuanced and complex than what it's made out to be. For starters, the "apocalyptic" predictions that have been popularly cited have questionable quantitative methods backing them. The most widely cited comes from a British environmental scientist named Norman Meyers. Myers wrote several papers in the late 1990's to early 2000's to alert policy-makers about the growing phenomenon of environmental refugees. His most influential paper was in 2002, where he estimated that up to 200 million people could be displaced by climate change by 2050. However, his methodologies have received considerable criticism. For the 2002 estimate, for example, Myers apparently forecasted the number of people that are expected to live in at-risk regions by 2050 and used this estimate as his basis for the prediction, assuming that all would be forced to leave. That said, Myers work did bring significant political and media attention to the potential for climate change to displace people, so I can't come down too hard on the guy. But Myers hasn't been the only author on this topic. For a brief period during the early 2000's, there almost seemed to be a fad among policy wonks, NGO's and advocacy groups to come out with increasingly dire predictions regarding climate change and migration. Yet most of these predictions have only been published in 'grey' literature, not scientific publications, and thus have not been subjected to any sort of academic rigor. In fact, all forecasts of climate displacement have been met with considerable skepticism from the scientific community. Regardless of academic credibility, these predictions have since punched above their weight when it comes to media sensationalism and policy making. They are often cited as scientific truth, without having their methodologies questioned. Moreover, even in the scientific community, now struggling to find a way to actually make an informed prediction, no clear consensus has emerged on exactly what kind of methodology should be used to measure displacement or how predictions should be modeled. This is reflected by the IPCC's noticeable absence on addressing environmental migration resulting from climate change. So far, the IPCC has not thrown weight behind any numbers, instead choosing to make vague statements about the potential for climate change to displace people. What? So there's no such thing as migration due to environmental conditions? Well, no, not exactly, but surprisingly it's really goddamn hard to pin down exactly what environmental migration is. If you accept that it is someone who simple packs up and leaves to move permanently to another location because their home has become intolerable due to environmental conditions, then an elderly couple relocating permanently from Minnesota to Florida would fit the bill. However, a young woman who leaves her home on the Niger delta due to flooding but then returns several months later would not. Yet we could probably agree that both scenarios are radically different in terms of the agency of the individuals involved and the resources available to them. In one, the relocation is voluntary. In the other, the relocation is not. Given this lack of methodology and empirical study, the field is wide open for guesses and doom-and-gloom estimates rather than actual numbers. This ties into the crux of the problem with drawing linkages between climate change and migration: People decide to relocate from one place to another as the result of a multitude of reasons, and not just for one reason in particular. In fact, research indicates that most migration is intra-national rather than international. That is, individuals who decide to relocate often do so within the borders of their own country before looking elsewhere. And, given this, how do you determine the difference between an individual who has relocated to a nearby city because his farmland dried up, versus an individual who has relocated because he is seeking better employment opportunities? What if both reasons are one-in-the-same? Bear in mind that the ability for state-actors or NGOs to calculate these types of movements are very much limited in developing countries. OK Arkane  , so you're saying that climate change WON'T cause a migration crisis?No. But saying that it will dangerously simplifies the situation by making such movements deterministic on one particular factor. Climate change will no doubt force households to migrate, but to what extent is proving to be exceptionally difficult to quantify because the other factors that go into a household to make such a decision are multiple and contextual. For example, assume your home is destroyed by a hurricane. Will you stick around and try to rebuild in the community where you've lived for your entire life, even if you suspect that there will be more hurricanes? Or will your strike out on your own, abandon your close-knit social ties, and head to the nearest major city to find employment and hope that they are better prepared for hurricanes there? What if you have two generations of family living with you? What if you have children? What if you are the sole breadwinner of the household? In fact, some really interesting research has shown that intra-migration flows tend to decrease after a sudden-onset environmental disaster. This is likely due to the type of aforementioned scenario above: people are attached to the places they know, and will expend a huge amount of effort and energy trying to rebuild their lives in-situ rather than seek shelter elsewhere -- often because they simply have no choice. It's a devil-you-know type of situation that is compounded by poverty and social ties. Yeah but won't climate change force many people to migrate? So, as it turns out, different people have different reactions to different types of environmental degradation. For example, a family in the Philippines who is displaced by a typhoon and is evacuated from their village may return afterwards to start rebuilding. On the other hand, a farmer in Malawi might weather through a few drought seasons before he realizes that his family will die if they do not find a way to make ends meet, and thus decides to take his chances in Lilongwe. Conversely, an affluent family in Delhi might attempt to immigrate overseas to a country with better air quality and a large Indian ex-pat community because they are starting to feel the effects of the pollution, even if it means accepting a lower standard of living. Each decision is one that is made within the context of that households perceived needs, resources and capabilities, and it is virtually impossible to predict or categorize this. Which is why it's so easy to fall into a trap of blanketing all of this with 'climate refugees', with a tinge of xenophobia as images of radicalized young brown men overwhelming Europe and converting ice cream trucks into mobile FGM units come to mind. OK, I get it, but a lot of people have said that climate change was a cause of the civil war in Syria! Good. Now this is the meat of the issue. Climate change by itself will not cause a global refugee crisis. However, it will be a contributing factor. Some academics think Syria is a good example of this. The incredibly simplistic tl;dr is that unprecedented drought conditions in Syria, exacerbated by climate change, caused agricultural production to decline and forced many rural families to relocate to urban centers. Farmers got pissed off at Assad for his lack of action and started to agitate for change, finding themselves with a population base to rally from in the cities... and, well ... you know the rest. The point is: climate change will exacerbate existing conflicts and tensions, and could in turn cause these to escalate, especially if there are concerns over a shortage of resources that reliant on environmental conditions (water, food, etc.). OH poo poo. OH poo poo. OH poo poo. I KNEW IT. I KNEW IT!!! Calm the gently caress down, chicken little. Yes, climate change likely did play a role in Syria's civil war and will likely cause more conflicts. But if it was to be the determining factor, we should expect neighboring Jordan to be in similar turmoil due to its ongoing drought -- moreso, even, considering it has been the 'go to' point for refugees from Iraq, Palestine and Syria. But it hasn't, and there are probably lots of reasons for this. Generally speaking, environmental degradation and resource conflicts can be managed. But this, too, is determined by many factors. The most important of which appears to be the strength of national, sub-national, and community institutions to address big problems. For instance, some studies have shown that in some drought-stricken areas in sub-saharan Africa, farmers didn't just go all crazy and kill each other over to have their cattle graze on limited lands, but instead set up councils to manage disputes and negotiate pasture rights for the benefit of everybody. In fact, more often than not, it is cooperation that becomes the hallmark of resource shortages, rather than violence or conflict. But again, this appears to be very much dependent on how well institutions are able to withstand slow or rapid-onset changes. A nation with weak governance regimes and little public trust is more susceptible to conflict events than a nation with stronger institutions and more public 'buy-in'. There are also other factors at play here, too. One geo-spatial analysis of global conflict events indicate that the factors that best predict whether a region will experience conflict is falling GDP and increasing urban population density. Resource shortages, such as water availability and arable land, though identified as factors, were relatively minor compared to the first two. The authors of the analysis speculated that there were several reasons for this: 1. Increased urban to rural migration caused conflict in receiving areas. As more people pour in from the countryside, more conflict occurs over housing, jobs, and access to services between the existing residents and newcomers. 2. Less GDP means less material wealth for citizens and less revenue for the government. As the economy declines, more people are out of work and the government receives less money in taxation, leading to a decline in services just when people need them the most. 3. More people in a city means more of a population base to build a movement from. Proximity to people with simmering grudges against either their perceived persecution or their unhappiness with existing power structures can lead to the formation of organized resistance groups that can credibly threaten the legitimacy of a weak government. In terms of declining GDP and an increase in the population of urban areas, climate change will obviously impact both. Thus, you can start to imagine how climate change won't necessarily be the cause of future refugee flows, but rather will be one of many determining factors for those refugee flows. What does all this mean? The good news is that all this means that we have the capacity right now to prevent future refugee flows. Yes, climate change itself is inevitable, and yes, this means that some areas of the planet will likely see human settlements relocate. However, although the environmental effects of climate change might be 'baked-in' for the next half century, the way we handle those effects are by no means certain. First and foremost would be to recognize that sounding all alarms on the potential for a migration crisis that will result from climate change is counter-productive. It's certainly useful for lighting a fire under the asses of policy-makers to take the issue more seriously, but it does nothing in the long run to address the real problem which is the inability of the institutional structures of many developing nations to cope with what's coming. If we want to focus on ensuring that a migration crisis does not occur, we must go directly to the source instead of cowering behind guard towers and barbed wires. Here is a quick illustrative scenario to hopefully get the point across: Let's say climate change causes a farmer to miss a growing season or two due to drought, high temperatures, invasive pests, whatever. In France, this farmer would be relatively certain that she could cover her losses through insurance or through government subsidy and simply wait things out. Worse comes to worse, she declares bankruptcy and moves in with family in Boredeaux, where she can rely on the stability of the state to provide her with welfare until she can find a new job. In Zambia, however, it's a different story. Barely able to make more than subsistence, the farmer is now completely unable to feed himself or his family. With no other option, and with no extended family for support, he decides to take a chance in Livingstone. Yet he will likely be unable to find state support, and will have to rely on luck and chance to find another job or become well established. Maybe he succeeds. Maybe he gets involved with petty crime to support himself -- its easy when the police can be bribed. Maybe he gets assaulted for being another migrant trying to steal someone's job. But in any case, his future trajectory is much different than that of the French farmer. So, uh, what do we do? This is where things get thorny, because there are really only two answers to this question. And, in my opinion, it's starkly apparent which one we are choosing. I'll leave it up to you to decide which one you think that is. Answer #1: Let the Fuckers Die  Oh sure, we will cluck our tongues, send our prayers over Twitter, maybe make a donation to the Red Cross, but generally speaking, we will just let the fuckers die. The wealthy nations of the world will continue to calcify their borders, come up with even more elaborate and sophisticated surveillance methods, and withdraw from international obligations in order to sort out their own climate-change strategies at home (hey, those barriers to protect New York City from storm surges aren't free you know). What seems like a surveillance state to us now will seem like a paradise of liberty and freedom to future generations -- if they are even aware of the kind of freedoms we had. Ultimately, we will keep the status quo going for as long as humanly possible, with maybe a few social-democratic changes here and there to keep everyone happy and well-fed in the lifeboats. Regardless, since we are all basically powerless to stop the inertia of our economic, social, and political systems, and since attempts to collectively come together to address potential reforms will likely be smothered-in-the-crib both online and in reality, we will simply have to be content to click the frowny face on Facebook that accompanies the article about the tens-of-thousands who died in Thailand during the most recent typhoon in order to register our impotent horror at what the world is coming to. Internationally, we can expect to witness institutional and social collapse on an unprecedented scale in the developing world, but don't expect it to affect us. For the ones who try to escape, they will simply become part of the meat-grinder of human misery within their own borders. For the incredibly lucky ones who get within spitting distance of a wealthy western nation and don't drown in the process, they will either be detained in horrific conditions (see: Australia), or simply blown up or shot -- all outside the public eye, mind you. Maybe to try and soothe our collective guilt we will have some token efforts to accept a piddling amount of refugees through a 'humane' and 'fair' determination method -- possibly a lottery? Who knows. In any case, I don't envision that we will see migrants being shot or detained on the borders of the inner core of privileged countries. We will leave the grisly duty of thinning the asylum claims to transit states like Hungary and Greece (or, in the case of North America, Mexico), whom I imagine we will start making some pretty sweet deals with in return for some, uh, discrete and 'enhanced' border security measures. Pros: We will be fine! Cons: Untold millions die and the planet becomes much more hostile to human civilization and for the love of god lets hope India and Pakistan don't duke it out! Answer #2: We Do Something!  Armed with the knowledge that the best way to prevent a migration crisis is to make drastic efforts to strengthen and enhance the institutional capabilities of the most vulnerable regions of the world, humanity collectively decides to invest enormous resources into development programmes that allow global populations to mitigate and adapt in place for the effects of climate change. I don't think I can over emphasize enough the scale of resources, international cooperation, and jurisdictional overlap that would have to occur under such a scenario. The actions necessary to coordinate for this would dwarf by several orders of magnitude anything seen during WWII. We would essentially be undertaking a generations long process with the following goals: 1. Ensure that almost all nations on earth have the capability to mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change within the next thirty years; 2. Undertake this process in a way that does not repeat the mistakes of colonialism and respects national autonomy and diversity of populations; 3. Do all of the above in a manner that simultaneously reduces carbon emissions; and, 4. Ensure the process is uninterrupted, even if results will not be seen for half-a-century or more, and even if it may cause a slight material reduction in the quality of life for those living in the global north. Pros: Humanity enters a golden age where nations and cultures deeply commit themselves to planetary stewardship for the benefit of all current and future generations! Cons: We don't get new iPhones every three years and our taxes go up! Uh... Yeah, tl;dr we are so screwed. But hey, I hope this was informative for someone. Edit: grammar and such sitchensis fucked around with this message at 00:49 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So as a follow-up to Syria, what parts of the world do you guys think are next to have a similar ecological/social crisis in the near future? Potential hot-spots that could spark the next great wave of migrants? Are any third-world countries bound to adapt and improve better than others, or are they equally screwed? Which countries are bound to be really screwed? Well, like the effort posts have been pointing out, "it depends". Generally speaking, I imagine nations that have weak or weakening public institutions or loopy-iron-fist ruling regimes, and that have large populations vulnerable to climate change impacts will become the 'hot-spots'.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
plushpuffin posted:We can solve this. We just have to think outside of the box. No joke, some have proposed massive underground bunkers that we fill with logged trees like we do nuclear waste, as a form of carbon sequestration.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:For those of you who are actually in the trenches, at what point did/do you just throw your hands up and accept that the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable? This past year has probably been the tipping point for me. In my 20's I still felt some kind of optimism. I remember reading about the crisis that coral reefs would face should the warming continue. I thought to myself "there is no way humanity would let something like the Great Barrier Reef turn into a brittle bleached skeleton". At the time I was involved with forest ecology and was learning some scary stuff, this eventually transformed into an academic and professional career in urban planning in the hopes that I could at least address what I thought was the primary contributor to the crisis -- our patterns of consumption across the landscape. Then this year came along and wouldn't you know it, we are going to let the Great Barrier Reef turn into a brittle bleached skeleton. I have the means to take a trip to Australia. I am seriously considering it given the situation. I know it's selfish, but at this point, honestly, whether I do it or not, it's going to be gone.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
At an individual level, it really feels like all I can do is flail around impotently. But I am still trying hard to change things in my field, even if it's just rearranging deck chairs. Hypothetical: if you were a multi-billionaire on the level of Mark Zuckerberg with connections everywhere, what would you guys do?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This sort of response is counterproductive. Just because our options are "bad" and "worse" isn't a justification for picking "worse" through inaction. And talk about it with your friends and family. I know it's kind of a downer sometimes, and definitely don't make it a point of regular conversations, but you should try discussing it with other people. Word of mouth is still a powerful thing outside of social media.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:If China thought reducing emissions would severely damage their economy they wouldn't have signed up to the agreements at all. Now they can continue what they (hopefully) believed was the correct long term decision while also being tbh I think you are right about this. I suspect the PRC can see the writing on the wall. They literally have nothing to lose by combating climate change and investing in mitigation/green energy. It will help to quell the murmurs of discontent over the environment domestically and paints them in a very positive light on the international stage. They also have done a lot of development work/major investments in African countries (many of which will be hit hard by climate change) and I'm sure they'll want to keep up the good will as they push development (read: influence) there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 06:24
|
|
about they have surpassed the Americans as a world leader in the field.
|
FWIW if Canada becomes something of a 'Plan B', expect it to go the way of Puerto Rico in terms of autonomy. If the US needs to resettle tens of millions of people into Canada, it will ask us very politely with a gun to our head. The reality is, even if 10% of the population of the United States was relocated to Canada, that would essentially be doubling the population of our entire country. If you are serious about relocating, the PNW or Eastern Great Lakes region (i.e. upstate New York) is your best bet to 'weather things out'. In any case, the nature of climate change and its self-reinforcing effects means the decline will be relatively slow and gradual until it's not. My favorite illustration of this is the exponential growth of a drop of water in the stadium: quote:
sitchensis fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Any time I try to mention something like this to some around me, I just get the usual line about liking it warm in winter. We won't get the denial to stop until heat stroke in December becomes a valid concern. I've found the best word to use is 'eerie'. "This warm winter has been pretty eerie, huh?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
That is awesome Captain Scandinavia! I wonder if I could set up the same thing in my city.
sitchensis fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Thankfully most of that worthless, unsightly agricultural land near major settlements in North America have had their topsoil removed and paved over for endless sprawling single family homes and vast seas of asphalt parking lots for chain restaurant outlets, shopping malls, gas stations and big box power centers!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:You can't really blame it solely on Trump appointees, given that people like Lamar Smith have been on the war path against any sort of progressive environmental policy for years. Credit where credit is due, although the fake news and climate denial will undoubtedly get worse as time marches on. Land temperatures != atmospheric temperatures 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Sea Level Rise Rising sea levels can also infiltrate local aquifers and make the water brackish and unfit for consumption. So, there's that, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
God that's depressing. I can't imagine what some scientists are feeling in the U.S. right now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
I remember when in 2012 the Conservatives in Canada shut down PEARL, the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab, a vital monitoring station in the high arctic. Although (some) funding was restored by the Liberal Party when they took office in 2014, the lab is still grappling with the effects of its funding loss. Yes, Trump might be in office for only four years (one would hope), but if his climate/science policies are anything like the Conservatives in Canada, it will take a lot longer than that for the scientific community to recover.The Globe and Mail posted:The place is called PEARL – the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory – and its choice position overlooking Eureka on Ellesmere Island offers a window on the mechanics of climate change in the part of the planet where its effects are most immediate and acute.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
If you were a billionaire with tens of billions of dollars, how would you try and 'solve' climate change?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Europe is going to have a very hard time feeding the people that already live there when the AMOC shuts down, there is literally no way they could accept all the refugees they will be seeing in the next couple decades. Just gonna repost this part of a write-up I made a while back ... quote:What do we do? sitchensis fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Anybody who does not feel nihilistic about the climate is either underinformed or is still progressing through the stages of grief. I suppose so. I guess it's up to each individual then. I still have my own sense of justice and what is 'right'. My gut still tells me it's 'right' to try and find a way out of this mess, even if it is hopeless. At the very least, it gives me some purpose and meaning. I mean I could stand around in the first class lounge and drink some cognac while I sob through Nearer My God to Thee, or I could lash together some planks and try to make a raft; either way, I'll be dead in the water. Should try to be useful at the very least, if only to keep to my own set of principles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Someday solar power and electric cars will be more economical than gas/coal. I think I'm going to try and go that route when I get a house and just talk about how much money I'm saving. Even if I'm not. If you seriously care at all about the carbon impact of your home/mode of transportation, move into housing that isn't a single family home and locate yourself within reach of public transit. Also, buy a bike.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
After freaking out about climate change as a teenager (10 years ago on these forums no less!) and wanting to do something - anything - to stop it, I just started my dream job that directly helps to lower carbon emissions and improves social equity. Feels good man. For all young'uns who might stumble into this thread: get angry, get passionate and make a plan. I might not be able to stop everything bad from happening, but making a living from doing what I feel is right is amazingly cathartic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Climate change will ruin cultural traditions and we will have to ruin cultural traditions to mitigate the damage of climate change. That's a lot harder to handle than regulating electricity generation. Yeah fusion power is hella easy to do compared telling hundreds of millions of fat westerners to give up their single family homes in the sprawl, use bicycles instead of their SUV/truck, only eat vegetables and buy locally made goods that aren't readily available for purchase at a whim just to maybe make the planet less of a furnace inferno hellstorm for their grandchildren. Oh, and also compared to convincing the billions of aspirational westerners that they should do the same.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
call to action posted:No doubt we can do some brutal poo poo at our borders, but I'm talking about internal refugees. The people that fled NOLA after Katrina for Houston, Baton Rouge, etc. were and still are truly desperate. Can you imagine if that event were much larger, and permanent? If only 10% of the population of the United States decided to cross the border into Canada, it would effectively double the population of that country. It's unimaginable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
When America wants to officially annex Canada, it will do so by first lining up its military across the border from major Canadian cities and then asking very politely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Rime posted:Please See: Quting myself, because even though I'm an optimist, even I can see the writing on the wall: sitchensis posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Imagine if a foreign country killed even 5% of what the AHCA is going to kill. Vehicle crashes kill 40,000 people a year in the U.S., but hey that's just the cost of driving, absolutely nothing we can do to help that!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:Just spend 70 percent of your income on an apartment in the inner-city or you're a part of the problem. No, you can't live farther away and pay less for housing because the buses don't go to that neighborhood and it's irresponsible to drive to work. Maybe the problem is a systemic one regarding the way we regulate and subsidize our land use and transportation systems to make car ownership and suburban living vastly more affordable than any other way of life!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
*only builds enormous freeways and sprawling single family home suburbs for the last sixty years* "There is no demand for any other type of development!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Quote!=edit
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
we do read this thread fyi chairmaster
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Lately it sure seems like that one looney scientist who claimed we only had ten years left until civilization collapsed due to the effects of climate change might have been onto something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Matt Christman from Chapo Trap House:quote:"Fascism arises because of the collapse of institutional legitimacy of liberal institutions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
How can I profit from climate change? For fun I looked at some dirt cheap property in a northern Canadian port town that will have some good access to international trade once the arctic ice is gone. It also looks like it will be spared some of the more horrific effects of a warming world. Plus, those environmental migrants will hafta relocate somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Beware the North Atlantic will get loving cold when the thermohaline circulation shuts down. It's on the Pacific coast so all good I think
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Jesus loving christ! No, really, it's OK. If New York City goes underwater we can just relocate everyone to the spare New York City we built in case of such a scenario.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 17:51
|
|