131–140 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
climate /ˈklʌɪmət/ noun the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. "our cold, wet climate"
how can one copy paste an explanation without reading it? "over a long period of time." hot outside right now != climate is hot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you really want to kick off another civil war/world war, something like this seems like the perfect way to do so. If people tried to enforce environmentalism via a dictatorship, the rest of the population would like fight back hard, and they'd end up in a very awkward situation very quickly. Remember, the people who would want to limit other people's consumption for environmentalism sakes are significantly outnumb…
>Basically, any attempt would go about as well as someone walking into the middle east and trying to set up a secular dictatorship in the style of the USSR. Maybe I'm not getting your point, but Assad regime is secular dictatorship, more or less? So if you wanted to say that this is something completely impossible, well, the metaphor is not quite correct. And Iran before 1979 revolution could be considered secular di…
Anyone looking for an answer to the fermi paradox, I think we’ve got something here!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very happy path engineering design. What will you do with countries who refuse to comply? Will you bomb them? Will you sanction/starve them to death? Is this really an existential crisis for our species? I want to know what cards you're willing to put on the table.
> What will you do with countries who refuse to comply? What are you on about? They can't "refuse to comply" in the above scenario, because it's a matter of pricing in carbon on imports. They can either comply with a process to verify that all carbon inputs have already been neutralized, pay the cost to neutralize them, or else America/EU/Japan/whoever else participates will simply slap on a very conservative carbon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's also naive to think that politics is going to reverse that change - it's a technological problem. The problem itself is technological, but do you believe the solution is (solely) technological? Considering the technical aspect of the problem is well enough understood, if politics "can't" fix this, then what's plan B?
> but do you believe the solution is (solely) technological? Largely yes. Technological solutions are definite and verifiable. Political solutions (behavioral coercion) is rarely so, you never know the adverse effects of pushing people to do X. Politics creates too much tension, too much expenditure of energy on things that have little effect, while technology multipliers can be huge. And they lose credibility easily…
Whatever the solution ultimately is, it's surely going to need money, and lots of it, so how is this going to happen without public consensus?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is entirely predicated on understanding how much we have affected it so far Obviously, this isn't true. It's possible to have a future effect on things you haven't yet changed and visa versa.
I never said it's not possible. I'm asking how do we know how much we can effect it in the future if we're not entirely clear on how much we've affected it so far and how that effect has changed itself? Or do you already have an answer to the 2nd question you posed?
They are related but the relationship is not clear.
And only the second question matters.
Economics is a morally bankrupt pseudoscience, that’s literally killing our planet. Anyone looking for an answer to the fermi paradox, I think we’ve got something here!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Basically, any attempt would go about as well as someone walking into the middle east and trying to set up a secular dictatorship in the style of the USSR. Maybe I'm not getting your point, but Assad regime is secular dictatorship, more or less? So if you wanted to say that this is something completely impossible, well, the metaphor is not quite correct. And Iran before 1979 revolution could be considered secular di…
Might have not been the best example. Either way, the point being, trying to enforce environmentalism by force would probably annoy the majority of the population enough that your government wouldn't remain in power for very long.
A green dictatorship would signal that everyone is given equal treatment. It's also an emergency measure.
Of course the word "dictatorship" has a very bad connotation here, because it implies oppression and violation of human rights, but that's not what I am advocating.
I am advocating for the revocation of the right to emit co2. It is a very strong restriction when look around you, because consumers are really friendly towards their lifestyle which directly finance lobbying efforts to avoid a carbon tax.
What is needed to do, while the industry adapt, is to allow the minimum, necessary items people needs to live: food, water, hygiene, shelter etc. while diminishing co2 emissions to their most lowest possible, and let industry to work without emissions to gradually change their process.
You cannot trust the industry to reduce emissions and do a slow switch because it's going to be too slow, and you cannot trust liberalism to find quick solutions if there is no strong enough incentives. Lobbies are never going to let change happen. It's going to be too slow and chaotic, not to mention fraud and people who will disagree with human responsibility.
Look at Tocqueville. Democracy is great, but when there is urgency about a complicated problem, democracy can be a problem.
Australia is burning, its government doesn't seem to think anything is wrong, they just want to dig more coal
Australia is burning every year. The main reason why it's burning so much right now is that not enough prescribed burns were done earlier in the season.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/is-th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said it's not possible. I'm asking how do we know how much we can effect it in the future if we're not entirely clear on how much we've affected it so far and how that effect has changed itself? Or do you already have an answer to the 2nd question you posed?
Just because you know how much effect you’ve had doesn’t mean you know how much control you have. They are related but the relationship is not clear. And only the second question matters.