Stop telling me what to do
Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
41–50 of 179 posts
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#42While I support the efforts to prevent and reverse the environmental damage we're causing, personally I don't believe they'll really succeed. It seems that human society is fundamentally incapable of acting in a coordinated way against a global, long term threat. So at a certain point convincing people to take the bus instead of a car, specifically because that will save the planet, starts to seem like a lie. It's no…
Why would "convincing people to take the bus instead of a car" require coordinated action? Just stop letting them buy gas. (Where by "them" I mean individual passenger-vehicle drivers. Continue to allow commercial vehicles to buy gas, but require that they show their commercial-vehicle license at the register.) A country could do it; or it could be done city by city with municipal bylaws to act only upon the worst po…
Just stop letting them buy gas? That would take either:
- That companies (plural) stop selling gas. That's coordinated action, because you need all the oil companies (or all the gas stations) to agree.
- That the government decides it. But in a democracy, that takes coordinated action too. The president does not have the constitutional authority to decree "no more sales of gasoline for passenger vehicles".
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#43Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I found in the whole article that resembles a counterproposal is a single sentence in the end - "... policy flows from conversation and debate instead of force." So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds li…
"So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds like exactly what we've been doing for the last 30,40,50 years."
It has sounded more like competing monologues than anything else to me...
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
A big problem is there's no vocal positive or optimistic environmental movement. What gets attention are doomsday prophesies and people using the environment to push their political beliefs. It's almost impossible to get everyone on board with negativity. You just get a base of true believers while alienating everyone else, as you say. We need to push positive solutions (nuclear power and carbon capture) that aren't…
There's solarpunk, at least. Also, I think there's optimism in people talking about how living a happier, more social life can also be one that happens to be lower in carbon intensity. I currently live in a very car-dependent detached house on an island (so reliant on planes to go anywhere) and am viewing flats now in a place where I can live car-free and go places via train. And on top of all that, every time I have…
There’s stuff people can do. Eat less/no meat. Buy an EV. Etc. But then commentators will refute that with all sorts of stuff “one person can’t make any sizable impact,” “EVs are powered from the grid which isn’t carbon neutral”, “EV tires spread particulate emissions.” Etc.
Thing is, denialism and stopping progress makes people looking for solutions also more extreme.
So who knows. Maybe part of the answer is partially ignoring or severely discounting certain Internet discourse.
Edit-so the early replies to my comment highlight my point.
On thinking further, people do need to talk. But the internet is clearly a noisy channel that props up voices that might not even exist outside of a special interest funding them (through bots and well funded campaigns). And people doing futile (because of bigger, larger problems an individual can’t directly stop) personal efforts might act as a pressure release. So what if they can’t turn off a big container ship or stop a wasteful airliner there’s at least doing what they can do. Especially if it’s relatively peacefully and part of normal process. Better than destroying a piece of art in the name of “awareness.”
Edit2-Unless radicalism from the other side is what commentators against individual emissions choices want? Push down thise concerned about climate change so that they do something radical, point to it, and suggest people should just continue business as usual.
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#45Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#46I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…
I agree. But we really should be eating less red meat.
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accuracy, please. During the peak of the last Ice Age (~20,000 years ago), sea level was ~120 m lower than today. As a consequence of global warming, albeit naturally, the rate of sea-level rise averaged ~1.2 cm per year for 10,000 years until it levelled off at roughly today's position ~10,000 years ago. [1] The important part being things have been stable for a very long time wrt human history . All our established…
Except it never leveled off. It's been rising at the same rate for several thousand years.
Source? Evidence?
When someone says "X", and provides a source for their position, saying "no, Y" with no source, evidence, or even argument is rightly viewed as a very weak reply. Saying "no, Y, according to source Z" is a bit better, but it still leaves you with dueling sources and no reason why the reader should believe your source. A really strong reply is "no, Y, see source Z to explain what's wrong with the source the parent cited".
So... can you give us some reason why we should believe your position, instead of the GP's cited one?
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of these things required any change from regular people. In fact, today many people say that ozone hole just disappeared, because the changes needed were so transparent, no one even noticed. Is there a way people can continue their normal lives, but still eliminate the green house gasses emissions?
We won't reduce emissions unless there's a massive reduction in population. Otherwise normal people will adapt. Less people will die if the planet warms more. Extreme cold events kill more than heat waves do and that's even without including the seasonal flu and cardiac events related to the cold.
There are hard limits on how much heat a human can take. We cannot adapt beyond, except for literally never going outside again.
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#49Nobody cares
Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”
#50Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I found in the whole article that resembles a counterproposal is a single sentence in the end - "... policy flows from conversation and debate instead of force." So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds li…
"So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds like exactly what we've been doing for the last 30,40,50 years." It has sounded more like competing monologues than anything else to me...
[deleted]