Trabisnikof posted:

i mean in so much as "there are people with those things in what people call the 3rd world" but it is certainly far from everyone having it.

quote:

regardless, which part of those lifestyles that isn't "endless consumerism" do you think that's really incompatible with effectively combating climate change?

like I can thing of some, both negative and positive parts of the lifestyles, like American's insane commutes being a negative one, and long distance vacations being a positive part of the lifestyle that might have to fall by the wayside as we transition. But neither of those I think are so fundamental that people can't adapt. Hell, we used to have a system of "electric trains take you to work on the weekdays and to the vacation spot on the weekend" before in this country.

Even the unwinding of the meat industry is something that could happen without having to truly change people's lifestyles. They're already eating mostly artificial meat constructs as it is, changing the % of TVP isn't really going to change the majority of people's lifestyles in a meaningful way.

The Oldest Man posted:

Any one of these things would probably trigger reactionary violence if you did it in America; everything that is America is these things.

Rectal Death Adept posted:

if you are talking about meaningless changes that wouldn't actually accomplish anything but are technically positive changes then sure a lot of people wouldn't complain about mildly negative impacts on their life.

stellers bae posted:

just finished moving to the olympic peninsula from mountain colorado in anticipation of megafire/water problems in CO

Trabisnikof posted:

Where’s your local water supply coming from now?

The Oldest Man posted:

no more money for highways

Shima Honnou posted:

america's been doing this one longer than ive been alive

The Oldest Man posted:

no more consumer goods shipped across an ocean with fossil fuel powered ships after being manufactured in coal-powered factories with resources shipped across an ocean with fossil fuel powered ships from mines powered by coal

no more mechanized military adventurism.

Bathtub Cheese posted:

cspams a place where the white lefts finest minds will recite a litany of wasteful activities done with particular intensity in America and describe a home-grown political ideology that finds even the most trivial acts of environmentalism deeply offensive, right after dismissing that there’s nothing specific to how American society relates to nature that might explain this.

Sing Along posted:

There's no way to enforce the first point here without the second. The globalized economy can only be stopped with force.

Sing Along posted:

There's no way to enforce the first point here without the second. The globalized economy can only be stopped with force.

The Oldest Man posted:

Posadism's back, baby

Sing Along posted:

There's no way to enforce the first point here without the second. The globalized economy can only be stopped with force.

Bathtub Cheese posted:

cspam... the lefts finest minds

redleader posted:

Rectal Death Adept posted:

You win, only America is an evil capitalist. We should re-arrange the deck chairs to signify this somehow.

You want to start with the lounge chairs on the other side? I think we can make a hammer and sickle before the ship splits in half.

Sing Along posted:

building a militarized satellite network with materials mined from the moon and asteroids in order to drop carbon neutral rods from god on anybody who dares to build new cargo ships

The Oldest Man posted:

Posadism's back, baby

endlessmonotony posted:

Frankly with the desire to jump to genocide I question the leftist just as much.

"concerned about climate change" is gonna be the "concerned about immigration" of 2040, and they're going to do just as much about sustainability as the people concerned about immigration are doing to stop conflicts resulting in waves of refugees.

splifyphus posted:

The desire to prevent the democide that the economic system of liberalism is causing = desire for genocide, this week on words mean what liberals want them to mean.

So like, if your 'civilization' kills an entire biosphere, that means that you're actually not the good guy, you get that right?

endlessmonotony posted:

If you try to sell people a future they cannot bear, you only make convincing them of sustainable changes harder.

If you imagine up anarcho-primitivist restrictions with little to no bearing on actual sustainability you're either an ecofascist, trying to convince people to give up on sustainability, or just an exceptionally stupid doomer.

We could go carbon neutral while still having the internet and personal computers. Sustainable AC is perfectly possible in some regions. We don't need to give up spices, or pens, or paper. Steel and concrete are fine if used sparingly. Not even cargo ships are a real problem.

We do need to give up cargo planes, most meat products, personal cars and imported fruit. That's already a hard call, without considering that we need a massive amount of investment and international cooperation in giving up coal.

quote:

The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that “wood products,” including paper, account for about 10% of total deforestation. Cattle, soybeans, and palm oil are the other major culprits.

[...]

After years of felling forests in Indonesia, destroying ecosystems for endangered species such as the Sumatran tiger, and displacing rural communities, in 2013 APP finally caved to environmental activism and announced their “Forest Conservation Policy.” But before that, they deforested 4.2 million hectares of rainforest. Indonesia’s second-biggest paper maker, APRIL, refuses to adopt such a policy and decimates about 600,000 hectares of tropical forest a year. Additionally, in Indonesia, Greenpeace reports that 76-80% of logging is illegal.

Bad actors do illegal logging because the demand for paper is so high. For APP, there’s concern that supply will not meet demand under the company’s new zero deforestation policy. WWF’s assessment of the situation provides context. After APP pledged an end to deforestation, the company opened a new pulp mill in South Sumatra. APP has promised that the entirety of its pulp fiber supply will come from plantations. But the company only has this figured out up until the year 2020. Under current estimates, the amount of plantation supply will fall short of APP’s needs by at least 3 million cubic meters.

Yinlock posted:

humans aren't worth saving

Complications posted:

Just to start with we have to stop deforestation and outright reforest large percentages of the globe. We're going to be giving up a lot of paper, OP. And the international spice trade, and a fuckton more than that because we have to stop emitting.

endlessmonotony posted:

lol

How do you think trees work?

Sustainable forestry is a solved problem. Stopping non-sustainable forestry isn't, but that's a political problem.

The non-sustainable fuckers are out-competing the sustainable operators in the market too, leading to waste in the sustainable operations.

Complications posted:

lol what is a forest and how long does it actually take to regrow

edit: that aside, turns out wood farming isn't actually sustainable who could've guessed

endlessmonotony posted:

Twenty-ish years.

quote:

Also the study is very old and isn't even a little bit relevant anymore. Yes, there's a right way and a wrong way to get forestry to a sustainable level and a lot of research has been poured into it the past few decades. Turns out it's mostly the United States farting on its hands and refusing to stop burning resources out of spite.

Complications posted:

Try more than a century.


are you ever going to cite a source ever anywhere at any point for your drivel or are you just that kind of baseless optimist

gay_crimes posted:

so much for global warming
(we are all hosed)

silicone thrills posted:

I like that Weyerhaeusers website talks about how all they've cared about is sustainability in the last 100 years which is why almost all old growth forests were destroyed during that time.

There's such a massive difference between old growth forests and 2nd growth.

That being said it's probably better than concrete production between emissions and mining for sand that were almost out of.

silicone thrills posted:

I like that Weyerhaeusers website talks about how all they've cared about is sustainability in the last 100 years which is why almost all old growth forests were destroyed during that time.

There's such a massive difference between old growth forests and 2nd growth.

That being said it's probably better than concrete production between emissions and mining for sand that were almost out of.