81–90 of 114 posts
Please donate $1 to the Jay Inslee campaign, he's the only American Democratic candidate that has dedicated his campaign to fighting the climate crisis. Unfortunately, he's down in the polls and needs more supporters to keep him in the debates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We could just build fission power plants, they're reasonably safe, not too expensive and we know how to store the waste safely I'm not convinced this is true. Obviously there is Chernobyl, but the failures and shortcomings seem to not only be understood but popularized by Western media and we can say "oh that was just the Soviet Union." Then Fukushima happened, in a country which seems to be far better than the US…
The fukushima plant had a poor safety factor, in re the backup cooling power source. It's not as if the disaster happened in a vacuum, there was also a tsunami and the plant was not build outside of a potential tsunami zone.
Yes, Chernobyl was especially bad, and yes there were issues at Fukushima. I think we would avoid Chernobyl-level disasters, but I'm not convinced we would avoid Fukushima-level disasters.
It's scary, but there's nothing I can do. We need approachingly authoritarian action on this issue by world leaders. They've had the data for decades. And the longer they wait, the more dramatic the changes to everything will be. Certainly economic freedoms taken for today will be a thing of legend (and possibly horror.)
Without a democratic consense and legislation we won't manage to fight climate change because people won't support it and the industrialized world that is not authoritarian ruled won't buy into a climate dictatorship.
That being said, nothing good comes from dictatorship and authoritarian systems, never. If we atart to unilaterally dicide what is good and bad there is no way to tell when and where to stop. Or when we ourselves end up on the "wrong" side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of emissions reduced by these acts, multiplied by the tiny portion of the society that actually bothers to do these, is so insignificant compared to overall carbon emissions that it may as well be a rounding error. I use to believe doing my part helps the planet -- I still try to be as environmentally-conscious as possible, but I no longer believe it has an effect on the fate of our society. What one/dozen…
rounding errors accumulate unlike zeros I know very well that people consumption aren't the main polluting factor but we.. are the people, we can divert part of the cycle
people aren't willing to talk about the heavy stuff... yet. we'll get there, but until people start talking about painful solutions - technology running daylight hours only, order of magnitude reduction in oceanic shipping, etc. - it's just feel good type stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And vote in the democratic primaries for politicians that don't take a moderate position on the issue. cough cough, Joe Biden is a moderate, cough cough
It's really not so simple as moderate vs progressive. For instance, Bernie Sanders does not support levying a carbon tax. I doubt he would seriously support any climate change effort that isn't ultimately part of a jobs / labor bill.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/combat-climate-change-and-p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble is that if the "we" who are doing something does not include China and the rest of the world in coordination, then it is just sacrificing local economics in vain. The idea that the rest of the world is going to follow suit automatically based only on morals is far from obvious. It doesn't seem that anyone in the mainstream has really found a way to come to grips with this, that at its core any solution is…
I grew up in New Zealand, and now live in America. In New Zealand, people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if Americans don't change" Now I live in America, where people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if the Chinese don't change" And I'm sure in China they say the same thing back to the US. It's fun shifting the blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dumping a trillion dollars over twenty years into wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and power-to-gas would go a pretty long way without draconian measures. Providing strong monetary incentives to insulate buildings and install heat pumps doesn't have to be authoritarian either.
None of these will work because a significant portion of the population in countries with elective governments do not believe in climate change at all. This means they will viciously oppose all climate change action plans so long as they are allowed a voice. Authoritarian measures become necessary (even if I don't necessarily advocate for it) when a large portion of the population are too short-sighted to decide what…
I have the impression that most people opposing clinate change are afraid that the will loose something by the necessary changes, their cars, their perceived life style,... That's where politics come into play. Politicians have to communicate the necessary changes and come up with ways to manage the change without screwing the average Joe over. They found ways to divert billions to corporations with the best lobbyists, so there should be enough funds to combaz climate change. And once the western world started we are already half way there. The Paris accords used to be a global treaty, so there can be a global approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dumping a trillion dollars over twenty years into wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and power-to-gas would go a pretty long way without draconian measures. Providing strong monetary incentives to insulate buildings and install heat pumps doesn't have to be authoritarian either.
I can't imagine building subsidies and alternative fuels will undo the last 200 years of emissions. Structural changes that will reorganize our lives will be necessary. We are in a privileged position, in that we can make these structural changes in a favorable way now before we're faced with a reality that forces these changes on us.
It's scary, but there's nothing I can do. We need approachingly authoritarian action on this issue by world leaders. They've had the data for decades. And the longer they wait, the more dramatic the changes to everything will be. Certainly economic freedoms taken for today will be a thing of legend (and possibly horror.)
but, to be honest, i think that's shirking your responsibility. it's just giving up in a slightly different way - "can't do anything about this any more, need authoritarianism; my hands are clean!"
we know a small % of people can enact revolutionary change. many people are afraid, comfortable, or unable to do something like sitting in front of $national_capital, risking their jobs, etc. until that change comes.
it's unfortunate but this idea that "the people" can't enact change is silly; there's just not (yet) enough willingness to really sacrifice to get it done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fukushima plant had a poor safety factor, in re the backup cooling power source. It's not as if the disaster happened in a vacuum, there was also a tsunami and the plant was not build outside of a potential tsunami zone.
What in America's past suggests that we would build and maintain plants better than Fukushima? Is it our mismanagement of waterways? Our disaster preparedness and response as evidenced after Hurricane Katrina? Our laser-sharp focus on energy policy in government? Yes, Chernobyl was especially bad, and yes there were issues at Fukushima. I think we would avoid Chernobyl-level disasters, but I'm not convinced we would…
We have very few nuclear plants in areas that are even seismically active anymore, much less have any meaningful tsunami risk.