|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The problem isn't just that the media is bought and paid for (though it is), but that the message from both sides is poo poo. It's become a black and white religious issue, and people on both sides are making equally stupid claims and making it incredibly easy for opposite sides to ignore eachother. In the long run, those aware of climate change are closer to the truth than those saying nothing is wrong, but the sheer amount of catastrophism that goes on just leads to bad scientific journalism. Well this is great news. But do be specific: What do you think the consequences of 2 degrees of warming will be? Who should be listened to? James Hansen? Should we be aiming for 350ppm? And if the warming is less due to greenhouse emmissions than is commonly claimed, about what percent do you think they account for? Finally, why is your ice-age view not more widely accepted and transmitted, if it reflects the actual "in the know" science?
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:We know what needs to be done, and it's not a top-down solution. The real problem is getting the entire population on board, which will never happen until poo poo hits the fan and people realize that we have collectively eaten ourselves out of house and home for the sake of luxury items. When the bare necessities aren't being met, then people might have the aha moment that lets them know that their lifestyles were the root cause of their eventual suffering, nor is whiz-bang technology going to save them. Gotta respectfully disagree here on a couple of points. 1) Getting the "entire population on board" isn't possible, but it also isn't really the goal. Public policy and structural change doesn't really have much to do with the views of the public(s). Our non-response to climate change is at least equally due to structural factors, most importantly our economy - the dynamics of capital accumulation and so forth - as the "entire population's" view on climate change. 2) The moral argument: that we "did this to ourselves by being wasteful," again, I think reflects an incorrect analysis that ascribes too much agency and power to individual actors. We drive everywhere because our urban spaces were designed for it; we buy a bunch of useless poo poo because our economy requires it, or in a more immediate sense, because we're swimming in a sea of advertising/marketing/pr campaigns that create consumers. The structure has to change. We can ease a transition by "being the change we wish to see," riding our bikes, brewing our own beer, making our own soap, and all the rest of it, but the massive problems we're facing are systemic, and must ultimately be addressed at that level.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:I'm not going to disagree that the way our economy is structured plays a large part in this, but I don't see it changing until enough individuals change themselves. The economy doesn't work without massive individual participation. The big players in the economy have resource conservation directly against their monetary interests, so counting on the system to change itself without a massive perception shift by the public is expecting a waterfall to flow upwards. Well, to begin with: I don't expect the economic system to change itself. I expect capitalism to continue until reproducing itself becomes impossible or concerted efforts are taken by some group within society to end it. We're in agreement on this point. I'm quite familiar with the argument that our primary political goal should be to "withdraw" from the system. I think there are a number of problems with this argument. First, certain groups are simply unable to make this sort of withdrawal. And those most able are healthy, wealthy and connected; precisely those that benefit most from the current system. Convincing a large number of them to withdraw participation from the economic system seems extremely unlikely. Second, and this is assuming that we could convince a large portion of the population to withdraw from the economic system, those in power would have to let them do it. Things like private property rights, markets, the monetary system and the legal system, in short, the pervasive structures of capitalist society which exercise power over us, will make this extremely difficult. Third, the alternative system that is "withdrawn" to would have to be, at the very least, more efficient than capitalism and not have its same inbuilt growth directive. This is not an easy thing to build, particularly if you've already "withdrawn" from the system of the dominant class, which has all the means of production, not to mention all of the guns. I'll just say one more thing about the moralizing; that human "greed" got us into this, and so forth. This is a serious blame-shift from the real driver of our voluminous consumption, political intransigence, and will to ignorance, which is the dynamics of capital accumulation and the class system. Capitalism must grow, production must increase, and capitalists (generally) must act to maximize profits. It's not that all capitalists are intrinsically greedy bastards; they're fulfilling the requirements of their role in the current economic system. If CEO "A" of a particular corporation is unwilling to do this, they will be fired. And they all know this.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
A massive new shale deposit was just discovered in Australia. It might be larger than Canada's  http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/01/24/business-australia-shale-oil.html
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
here it is http://sharesend.com/adixte7a
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:One thing that concerns me, and perhaps leaves me at a loss, is I've been following this thread for quite a while; I attempt to explain some of this to others, and provide references if able, but sometimes I'm met with outright hostile attitudes; while it is not important for me to be RIGHT and my friends/associates to be WRONG, I present tons of sources provided by people that have studied these things with what I can only assume to be impressive credentials. My impression is that people, generally, across class/race/sex/professions, don't want to talk about climate change. I've been shocked with how little it's talked about in my liberal (some would say radical) graduate program. There's a book called Living in Denial which details the social construction and maintenance of the denial of the effects of global warming in a Norwegian town facing far shorter winters etc. It's not that they deny the science, they just don't want to talk about it. toy fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Feb 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
More evidence that we're heading for ice-free Arctic summers sooner rather than later. Really terrifying stuff. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/ I don't even know how to talk about climate change anymore. It seems downplaying the severity of the situation is necessary for people to not shut down entirely and/or think you're nuts, but it's also what allows news like this to pass quietly and be buried under the wave of overly-positive thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
The Keystone pipeline just made it through another hurdle: the draft environmental impact statement says it's A-OK. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/01/1661221/state-department-report-keystone-xl-is-environmentally-sound/ This is hugely significant! Though the pipeline itself may not make a large difference one way or another on global warming, it has major symbolic importance: the US environmental movement has drawn a line in the sand on this issue. If (more likely when) we lose, it will force a re-formulation of strategy. If it radicalizes the movement it could be for the best. toy fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:I think this brilliant talk speaks for itself. Basically the answer to a lot of problems is related to cattle. A spot of hope. The only critique I see on his Wiki refers to the technique not having much effect on soil that's been previously tilled.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Will the Keystone XL Pipeline increase greenhouse gases? I thought the assumption was that the oil was going to get burned either way, it's just a question of where it will be refined and burnt, and whether we're going to pump it over a major aquifer. I'm not trying to downplay the environmental consequences, but I'm curious if the more-informed have an opinion on whether the pipeline would really be responsible for an increase in greenhouse gases. Yes. The pipeline is crucial to tar sands development - the state department's assumption that it "would be burned anyway" is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 21:08
|
|