Page 2 of 6
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:49 am
by Sandstorm
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:06 am
Slick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:06 pm
The main problem is that the vast majority of people just don’t give a shit, even well educated wealthy people who have no excuses.
As a example that does my head in I walked down my street tonight and counted 5 cars in a row parked up with their engines on talking away on their phones. I know it’s a tiny thing in the scheme of things, but it drives me nuts.
The UK is small fry in the scheme of things. Until China, India, USA, Russia can change and develop and environmental conscience we are all fucked. It doesn’t matter if we have zero output.
I’m not saying we should give up and do nothing our end fwiw.
Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:34 am
by Biffer
Two things everyone needs to do.
Change your travel - find ways to use less carbon
Change your diet - eat less meat.
If you don't do both if these, you're always going to be part of the problem. It's not a choice where you can do one but not the other.
After that, there are larger societal interventions around energy production, concrete and transport which have to be done by government.
But if you don't change your diet, we're fucked.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:27 am
by Torquemada 1420
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:34 am
THREE things everyone needs to do.
Change your travel - find ways to use less carbon
Change your diet - eat less meat.
STOP BREEDING LIKE FLIES
If you don't do both if these, you're always going to be part of the problem. It's not a choice where you can do one but not the other.
After that, there are larger societal interventions around energy production, concrete and transport which have to be done by government.
But if you don't change your diet, we're fucked.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:28 am
by JM2K6
Telling people to solve climate change by not doing one of the things we're built to do, that is a core biological impulse for pretty much all life on this planet, is a non-starter.
What individuals are able to do is fucking irrelevant compared to what corporations are able to do, anyway.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:35 am
by Raggs
Energy production and transport are the 2 biggest contributors I believe.
Both of which can be largely improved with nuclear and green energy, and electric vehicles.
In truth though, I suspect the way we get out of this realistically, is through carbon capture technology, since it actively reduces the amounts, rather than just slowing output.
Changing how China etc operates, and the USA for that matter, is not going to be quick or easy, and they contribute about 43% between them.
Putting the brakes on that is not going to work. So we need to hope we can use other methods.
That's absolutely not to say we shouldn't continue to do our part, since every little definitely helps, but as a global problem, it needs a much larger solution.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:56 am
by Biffer
This is a myth.
The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).
If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.
Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.
The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.
If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:02 pm
by Sandstorm
Elon Musk #1: "Look at my new battery Gigafactory, it is the clean future we're all looking for"
Elon Musk #2: "Check out my sexy new rocket, so powerful!"
Corporations and the selfish 1% are where the biggest changes have to happen.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:25 pm
by Torquemada 1420
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:56 am
This is a myth.
The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).
If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.
Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.
The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.
If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.
No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.
Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.
If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:28 pm
by Slick
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:25 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:56 am
This is a myth.
The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).
If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.
Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.
The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.
If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.
No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.
Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.
Yup, look at Africa, you have 100’s of millions of people moving to middle class consumer status over the next few years
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:43 pm
by Biffer
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:25 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:56 am
This is a myth.
The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).
If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.
Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.
The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.
If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.
No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.
Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.
If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.
So the people at the top need to change what an affluent lifestyle looks like. The aspiration is the top 10%. If we can make that lifestyle low carbon then all of the people in Africa who are aspirational end up aspiring to a low carbon way of living.
The population argument is just an excuse for you to do nothing. Because even if you stopped population growth tomorrow, there'd still be seven billion people aspiring to the lifestyle of the other half a billion or so. You know, the high carbon one.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:51 pm
by Biffer
BTW, if you have assets of more than £600k, you're in the 1%.
That includes your house, pension funds etc.
In terms of income, it's around £25k annually.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:01 pm
by Torquemada 1420
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:43 pm
So the people at the top need to change what an affluent lifestyle looks like. The aspiration is the top 10%. If we can make that lifestyle low carbon then all of the people in Africa who are aspirational end up aspiring to a low carbon way of living.
The population argument is just an excuse for you to do nothing. Because even if you stopped population growth tomorrow, there'd still be seven billion people aspiring to the lifestyle of the other half a billion or so. You know, the high carbon one.
It's too late. That genie is out of the bottle. Even if they all became hippies and lives in teepees in Wales, a new 1% would simply replace them. The aspirational bar is set. Tragically the only solution is for nature to create a mass extermination event of humans.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:15 pm
by Biffer
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:01 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:43 pm
So the people at the top need to change what an affluent lifestyle looks like. The aspiration is the top 10%. If we can make that lifestyle low carbon then all of the people in Africa who are aspirational end up aspiring to a low carbon way of living.
The population argument is just an excuse for you to do nothing. Because even if you stopped population growth tomorrow, there'd still be seven billion people aspiring to the lifestyle of the other half a billion or so. You know, the high carbon one.
It's too late. That genie is out of the bottle. Even if they all became hippies and lives in teepees in Wales, a new 1% would simply replace them. The aspirational bar is set. Tragically the only solution is for nature to create a mass extermination event of humans.
OK, so you've fully accepted the excuse and are going to carry on regardless. You've bought into the fuck everyone else I'll do what I like attitude and have justified it to yourself by blaming poor brown people. Well done you.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:16 pm
by Ymx
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:49 am
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:06 am
Slick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:06 pm
The main problem is that the vast majority of people just don’t give a shit, even well educated wealthy people who have no excuses.
As a example that does my head in I walked down my street tonight and counted 5 cars in a row parked up with their engines on talking away on their phones. I know it’s a tiny thing in the scheme of things, but it drives me nuts.
The UK is small fry in the scheme of things. Until China, India, USA, Russia can change and develop and environmental conscience we are all fucked. It doesn’t matter if we have zero output.
I’m not saying we should give up and do nothing our end fwiw.
Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.
You’ve clearly or wilfully ignored my last sentence then.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:19 pm
by Slick
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:34 am
Two things everyone needs to do.
Change your travel - find ways to use less carbon
Change your diet - eat less meat.
If you don't do both if these, you're always going to be part of the problem. It's not a choice where you can do one but not the other.
After that, there are larger societal interventions around energy production, concrete and transport which have to be done by government.
But if you don't change your diet, we're fucked.
Where does fish and seafood come in this? I barely eat any meat anyway, maybe once a month at someone elses house, but fish is quite prominent in my diet.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:19 pm
by Biffer
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:02 pm
Elon Musk #1: "Look at my new battery Gigafactory, it is the clean future we're all looking for"
Elon Musk #2: "Check out my sexy new rocket, so powerful!"
Corporations and the selfish 1% are where the biggest changes have to happen.
You might need to consider whether, in Global terms, you're part of the one percent. It's a very demographic to what we think of as the one percent in domestic terms in a lot of countries.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:33 pm
by JM2K6
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:25 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:56 am
This is a myth.
The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).
If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.
Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.
The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.
If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.
No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.
Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.
If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.
Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:49 pm
by Marylandolorian
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:16 pm
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:49 am
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:06 am
The UK is small fry in the scheme of things. Until China, India, USA, Russia can change and develop and environmental conscience we are all fucked. It doesn’t matter if we have zero output.
I’m not saying we should give up and do nothing our end fwiw.
Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.
You’ve clearly or wilfully ignored my last sentence then.
Don’t forget the big polluters such as INEOS, BP and dozens of other smaller gaz&oil companies,
Pollution index by countries
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankin ... ountry.jsp
I don’t know if it has been mentioned, but
agriculture is the 2nd most polluting industry.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:51 pm
by Torquemada 1420
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:33 pm
Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.
Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:54 pm
by Torquemada 1420
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:15 pm
OK, so you've fully accepted the excuse and are going to carry on regardless. You've bought into the fuck everyone else I'll do what I like attitude and have justified it to yourself by blaming poor brown people. Well done you.
Get a grip. My Frontline Greenpeace membership no is 0001. I'd hope you could extrapolate from that that what you are leaping to above in righteous indignation is bollox.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:55 pm
by fishfoodie
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:33 pm
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:25 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:56 am
This is a myth.
The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).
If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.
Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.
The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.
If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.
No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.
Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.
If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.
Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.
Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.
The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:55 pm
by Biffer
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:54 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:15 pm
OK, so you've fully accepted the excuse and are going to carry on regardless. You've bought into the fuck everyone else I'll do what I like attitude and have justified it to yourself by blaming poor brown people. Well done you.
Get a grip. My Frontline Greenpeace membership no is 0001. I'd hope you could extrapolate from that that what you are leaping to above in righteous indignation is bollox.
Well, that's obviously bollocks. Carry on pissing on your kids.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:04 pm
by JM2K6
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:51 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:33 pm
Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.
Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?
I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether over
population is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:07 pm
by JM2K6
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:55 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:33 pm
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:25 pm
No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.
Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.
If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.
Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.
Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.
The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.
Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:21 pm
by fishfoodie
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:07 pm
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:55 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:33 pm
Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.
Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.
The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.
Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.
And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !
Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?
And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:31 pm
by JM2K6
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:21 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:07 pm
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:55 pm
Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.
The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.
Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.
And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !
Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?
And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?
Yup, these are all vital questions and not ones that are being asked in any volume right now.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:51 pm
by Niegs
The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.
Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?
The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:54 pm
by shaggy
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:31 pm
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:21 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:07 pm
Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.
And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !
Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?
And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?
Yup, these are all vital questions and not ones that are being asked in any volume right now.
NZ will accept the Pacific Island population that is of rugby playing age.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:58 pm
by inactionman
Niegs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:51 pm
The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.
Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?
The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)
I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.
Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:08 pm
by sockwithaticket
Niegs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:51 pm
The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.
Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?
The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)
Food is certainly an area where relatively simple gains could be made if people were prepared to take lifestlye hits.
That anyone can pop into a UK super market and pick up a mango as a fairly regular item not some incredibly rare, barely affordable luxury good at all, let alone all year round, is a huge part of the problem.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:23 pm
by fishfoodie
shaggy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:54 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:31 pm
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:21 pm
And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !
Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?
And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?
Yup, these are all vital questions and not ones that are being asked in any volume right now.
NZ will accept the Pacific Island population that is of rugby playing age.
... & I think the UK will take anyone with a HGV license...
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 5:49 pm
by Biffer
inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:58 pm
Niegs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:51 pm
The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.
Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?
The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)
I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.
Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost
No. Simple market eco omics does not work for environmental matters.
A simple.market analysis says the sensible thing to do with the rainforest is to harvest it all as quickly as possible.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:30 pm
by inactionman
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 5:49 pm
inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:58 pm
Niegs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:51 pm
The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.
Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?
The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)
I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.
Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost
No. Simple market eco omics does not work for environmental matters.
A simple.market analysis says the sensible thing to do with the rainforest is to harvest it all as quickly as possible.
I meant apply a true cost at the point of purchase, and push that cost back through the entire supply and procurement chain.
Like we do for petrol and diesel, cigarettes etc. Would people seriously worry about car mpg if fuel duty wasn't so high?
This was in response to how we would enforce change, btw, as opposed to simply proscribing or rationing or otherwise trying to direct people into certain buying behaviours.
The equivalent but less difficult approach (noting that the above would require the buy-in of a global supply chain) is to reduce levies and duty on green - which we're doing, and really need to go further with.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:27 pm
by Sandstorm
sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:08 pm
Niegs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:51 pm
The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.
Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?
The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)
Food is certainly an area where relatively simple gains could be made if people were prepared to take lifestlye hits.
That anyone can pop into a UK super market and pick up a mango as a fairly regular item not some incredibly rare, barely affordable luxury good at all, let alone all year round, is a huge part of the problem.
But if we stop buying £1.75 mangoes, then how do mango producers in Costa Rica improve their lot and change their children’s future?
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:50 pm
by Certain Navigator
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:28 am
Telling people to solve climate change by not doing one of the things we're built to do, that is a core biological impulse for pretty much all life on this planet, is a non-starter.
What individuals are able to do is fucking irrelevant compared to what corporations are able to do, anyway.
The hypocrisy of the whole greenie movement: Only ever expect other people to make sacrifices. Never make them yourself.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:55 pm
by Certain Navigator
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:04 pm
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:51 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:33 pm
Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.
Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?
I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether over
population is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.
The problem isn't even 'over-consumption', since we're actually producing far more with far fewer resources (something the Attenboroughs of this world are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend).
The real problem is scare-mongering.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:31 pm
by Biffer
inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:30 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 5:49 pm
inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:58 pm
I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.
Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost
No. Simple market eco omics does not work for environmental matters.
A simple.market analysis says the sensible thing to do with the rainforest is to harvest it all as quickly as possible.
I meant apply a true cost at the point of purchase, and push that cost back through the entire supply and procurement chain.
Like we do for petrol and diesel, cigarettes etc. Would people seriously worry about car mpg if fuel duty wasn't so high?
This was in response to how we would enforce change, btw, as opposed to simply proscribing or rationing or otherwise trying to direct people into certain buying behaviours.
The equivalent but less difficult approach (noting that the above would require the buy-in of a global supply chain) is to reduce levies and duty on green - which we're doing, and really need to go further with.
Yeah.
If you do that it says cut the rainforest down.
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:43 pm
by Sandstorm
Certain Navigator wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:55 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:04 pm
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:51 pm
Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?
I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether over
population is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.
The problem isn't even 'over-consumption', since we're actually producing far more with far fewer resources (something the Attenboroughs of this world are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend).
The real problem is scare-mongering.
Putz
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:27 am
by mat the expat
Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:49 pm
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:16 pm
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:49 am
Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.
You’ve clearly or wilfully ignored my last sentence then.
Don’t forget the big polluters such as INEOS, BP and dozens of other smaller gaz&oil companies,
Pollution index by countries
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankin ... ountry.jsp
I don’t know if it has been mentioned, but
agriculture is the 2nd most polluting industry.
And all the main contributors are generally owned by companies in 1st World countries
Re: Climate Change Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:33 am
by JM2K6
Certain Navigator wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:50 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:28 am
Telling people to solve climate change by not doing one of the things we're built to do, that is a core biological impulse for pretty much all life on this planet, is a non-starter.
What individuals are able to do is fucking irrelevant compared to what corporations are able to do, anyway.
The hypocrisy of the whole greenie movement: Only ever expect other people to make sacrifices. Never make them yourself.
Corporations aren't people