271–280 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can't easily force 7B people to act individually. you have to regulate at the source (the mfgs). we are far beyond individual action as a viable solution.
I feel like people use this as an excuse to avoid making any inconvenient changes in their lifestyle, or rather to avoid considering making inconvenient changes to their lifestyle. The problem with this is that it means not only are they not doing anything to help, they're much less likely to vote for people who would too because they're unwilling to accept inconveniences. Instead they'll vote for people who's polici…
If I want a house made of sustainable materials, that's irrelevant if no builders near me are using them (or in the last 50 years when the houses were built).
If I want an appliance that lasts for 50 years, who is selling them? There's more profit in shipping cheap junk that you replace often
If I want to ride a bike to work, what do I do if there's no bike lane and I live really far away due to low density zoning and urban sprawl?
If I want to use renewable energy, which grid can I plug into that isn't powered by coal?
If I need medicine, which manufacturer will use biodegradable plastics for their containers? Should I factor that in and weigh it against the effectiveness of the medicine itself as a consumer? I'm supposed to vote with my dollars, right?
There's not really any way around legislating or directly subsidising alternatives if its going to make a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The temperatures are already increasing but the world is progressively getting less starved and malnourished over time, not more. Source: our world in data / Factfulness.
Could you please link to the source for your claim? In 2018, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization reported that climate change is one of the leading drivers of global hunger [1]. "Overall, the number of hungry people grew for the third year in row in 2017, reaching a total of 821 million worldwide. The paper warns that this number will continue to rise if countries fail to tackle climate change and to build resi…
Key chart: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-undernourished-regi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The temperatures are already increasing but the world is progressively getting less starved and malnourished over time, not more. Source: our world in data / Factfulness.
Could you please link to the source for your claim? In 2018, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization reported that climate change is one of the leading drivers of global hunger [1]. "Overall, the number of hungry people grew for the third year in row in 2017, reaching a total of 821 million worldwide. The paper warns that this number will continue to rise if countries fail to tackle climate change and to build resi…
It's also unclear if this is a noise figure rather than a trend. Overall hunger has been declining for decades. Less people die from hunger and weather than ever before if you move the running average out a bit (10 years for example)
I wouldn't discount climate change here. It's obviously part of it. Syria is a prime example, where drought has contributed to the civil war. But like all climate change - it's nuanced.
It's not just young people. I'm 56 and I'm going through a pretty serious personal existential crisis w.r.t. climate change. I think even the people who are worried about it don't realize quite how serious the situation is. I used to feel pretty confident that all of the really bad shit would not happen until after I was dead. I'm not nearly so confident any more. I now think there is a significant chance that I coul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sure people are frustrated, but I wonder what the consensus, if you could fine one, would be. Probably despair that they've been failed by my generation, my parent's generation and (since they're to a large extent the ones still in power, at least in the US), my grandparent's generation. Since, as you point out, change takes time in democracies, and even longer internationally, it was our collective jobs to avo…
Let's say people in the 70s knew climate change was happening. That it was the prevailing consensus and had the necessary evidence. What were governments supposed to do? What technology were they going to leverage? did we have computers, modelling, alternatives? Cars with ICE could have become more efficient, yes. But where else could we have cut the fat? Fewer people via worldwide contraception, to stem demand? More…
The broad understanding of it was known in the late 70s, and even accepted by politicians by the early 80s as a policy requirement before it became politicised later.
>I don't think we had the technology back then to do much about it. We could have slowed it down a bit, but not stop it.
If you think of the massive exponential growth of oil/gas consumption and the level of deforestation since the 70s - even just slowing it down back then would've bought a much longer window of time to tackle it with less disruption as well as develop technologies to help fix/mitigate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lockdowns reduced carbon emissions. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3089/local-lockdowns-brought-f... As for dog whistling, only dogs hear those and conspiracy theorists think they do.
An unprecedented global economic shutdown dropped emissions by 7%. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 It's not the way out, nor has it been proposed by anyone serious to be.
They are the richest, most privileged humans ever.
There are serious issues, like a future without jobs when General AI and automation hits.
But global warming is laughable. It's worrying about the devil because you masterbate.
Is this the result of a heavily medicated society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think if a billion people lose monsoon water, some of them won't put together a hand-made virus to wreak revenge on the wealthy nations responsible for the carbon burn and for climate denial? I mean, maybe, people have a capacity for good, but also for anger and revenge. Carbon caused climate change isn't a carry-ing capacity / overpopulation / over utilization issue (and is now somewhat dwarfing those issues). I…
What's your estimate of the probability of collapse, and why? I'd put it in the low single digits or maybe lower, on the basis that a cascade of things need to go wrong: first you need a climate scenario that exceeds the IPCC estimates, then you need significant damage or conflict, then you need a potential collapse event to emerge from the conflict, then the event has to trigger collapse on its own or other events h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think if a billion people lose monsoon water, some of them won't put together a hand-made virus to wreak revenge on the wealthy nations responsible for the carbon burn and for climate denial? I mean, maybe, people have a capacity for good, but also for anger and revenge. Carbon caused climate change isn't a carry-ing capacity / overpopulation / over utilization issue (and is now somewhat dwarfing those issues). I…
What's your estimate of the probability of collapse, and why? I'd put it in the low single digits or maybe lower, on the basis that a cascade of things need to go wrong: first you need a climate scenario that exceeds the IPCC estimates, then you need significant damage or conflict, then you need a potential collapse event to emerge from the conflict, then the event has to trigger collapse on its own or other events h…