Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next U.S. federal election is an excellent opportunity to address climate change. Ensure that the Democratic primary chooses a leader with a good plan, and then ensure that he/she wins in 2020.
Except it's also not. As a continent, Asia is the largest polluter by far. What's worst, they're exporting those practices to Africa. Meanwhile, the Anglo-West is hyper-focused on the US because there's a president they don't like. This has been a blessing (now the average Anglo-Westerner at least pretends to care about the environment), but also a curse (they think the US is the only country that can save humanity).
Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
201–210 of 525 posts
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#202I have a theory, and I have no evidence to back this theory up. The increases in anxiety in the general public over the last decade or so is in large part to people knowing we're on an unsustainable path. We're all collectively marching towards the edge of the cliff to jump off together. More people than ever have anxiety because we subconsciously (or consciously) know this. We're unsustainable with how we pollute an…
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is an incredibly dangerous attitude. Kudos that you're doing your part, and leading by example is important. However, systemic change is possible. We have numerous counter-examples: the UN, the Montreal protocol, free trade deals, et cetera. So why don't we have systemic change for climate change, because people like you and I let our politicians get away with it! If it was obvious to politicians that…
Maybe I wasn't very clear. I am not against systemic change. Surely we need to keep pushing for it. It's not either/or. We should use every method we can. On the other hand, recently I've been thinking about this. According to some theory it takes about 3.5% of the population to take part in active resistance to cause change ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w ). Now, 3.5% is clearly not a m…
1) Confounding variables. She essentially states that she looked up resistance movements and then quantified what percent of people participated and the outcome. But there are going to be tremendous confounding factors here. While she does not offer much in the way of examples she did reference the most iconic examples - Gandhi and the US Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement has some great examples, but I think India is perhaps even more striking so let's just consider that.
The British Empire was collapsing into bankruptcy in 1946 following World War 2. They were only saved by an emergency loan from the United States. At the same time this was happening the world had become divided between two superpowers - the USSR and the USA. And neither of them looked fondly upon British imperialism. India would be granted independence in a matter of months - in 1947. And over the next 18 years so would nearly every former colony of India, regardless of the level of resistance. And indeed, our author here almost certainly also listed all of these incidents as successes of nonviolent resistance from tiny minorities, even though their independence was driven largely by outside factors.
2) The meaning of protest has changed in the age of the internet. In the 1960s organizing was extremely difficult and travel was expensive. Seriously, imagine trying to organize things when the best you have is a phone where you have to manually dial each and every number (and long distance was pricey!) or things like hanging up signs on street lights. And people getting places was costly. A one-way domestic flight could set you back nearly a thousand dollars. The net effect of this is that in times past a single person represented far more people than just themselves.
However today this has radically changed. Organizing people is completely trivial and free. Travel is still a burden but it's become much cheaper and easier than ever before. This also means that protests mean something entirely different. if there are a million people protesting something, it's entirely possible that these million people don't necessarily represent all that many people other than themselves.
This also makes me wonder about something else, but since it's a distinct point - I'll put it in another post.
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#204Hopefully this will make us ditch the planet and finally look towards the stars. But I fear it will actually lead us towards an "Interstellar" future: where our inter-planetary progress is hampered by this single planet that we want to save.
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#205We keep hearing that individual actions don't matter and that we need a system change instead. I used to hold the same opinion for the very long time. However, since recently I started to turn around. For the last 30 years governments and politicians have proven incapable to do anything about global heating. What makes us think it will be any different in the coming years. Scientists keep producing report after repor…
This. And also: The environment is an awesome way for people to virtue signal how much they care. But the fact is the real world consequences of what most environmentalists ask for would seriously affect the way of life they have. Politicians know this. Any serious attempt to change anything will not get you votes and out of government. That is not the governments fault. That is not the corporations fault. That is ev…
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#206Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
So bees are important, quick google search reveal the bee is important for pollination. So can't one of the solution be find alternative way for pollination. Maybe even robotic bees? With the advancement of robotic technology, its not far fetched to think that this is possible right ?
>quick google search reveal the bee is important for pollination. I suspect that you might not be the best informed person out there.
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#208Someone else commented: > If you have any investments shift them from fossil to green. I'm interested in ideas about how to do this. There are some MSCI indices along these lines like the "low carbon" ones[1]. But these still include fossil fuel companies, just with a lower weight. There are also "ex fossil fuel" indices[2], but these only exclude companies that dig up the fossil fuels, and not necessarily those that…
Outside of that, supporting bonds that encourage low-carbon products/behaviors, or making personal changes in your energy use and lifestyle and taking the financial trade to lower your carbon footprint there. Things like buying an EV, lowering heating/cooling use, biking more, reducing waste, increasing efficiency, these may cost you in comfort or convenience but will pay the planet back.
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#209We keep hearing that individual actions don't matter and that we need a system change instead. I used to hold the same opinion for the very long time. However, since recently I started to turn around. For the last 30 years governments and politicians have proven incapable to do anything about global heating. What makes us think it will be any different in the coming years. Scientists keep producing report after repor…
Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's also not. As a continent, Asia is the largest polluter by far. What's worst, they're exporting those practices to Africa. Meanwhile, the Anglo-West is hyper-focused on the US because there's a president they don't like. This has been a blessing (now the average Anglo-Westerner at least pretends to care about the environment), but also a curse (they think the US is the only country that can save humanity).
The US gets the attention because they’re the only powerful country fighting against the sort of collective action we need to take.
Russia and China are not fighting against the sort of collective action we need to take?