Climate change and human responsibility

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

TLDR

My opinion is that our entire society is a problem. And we will never fix the problem, because at every level, we all look to those who are well above us and we blame them. None of us accepts responsibility for our own lifestyle.

We can’t change the mindset of our entire species. We can’t convince humanity to live with only what is essential for life, as every other organism does on this planet.

On the bright side. Nature has a way of dealing with imbalance, and we’re well down the path of being dealt with. Nature will sort itself (us) out, and the world will continue turning just as it always has.

No, I don't view the eradication of humanity as a positive.

I also don't think the main cause of the climate crisis is the lifestyle choices of regular everyday working people. It plays a part, but it's not the main culprit.

The main problem is decades of climate denial, leading to bad government policy and inaction. As a species, we have had ample opportunity to get moving faster on the energy transition to avoid a disastrous outcome. Now we're in a situation where disaster is unavoidable, it's just a question of how disastrous it will be. We still have the power to avoid many of the worst scenarios, but we need to move faster than we're moving. And with the political situation in the US being what it is, the odds are unfortunately not in our favour.

[GGG]

Where is this climate defeatism coming from? Is it an organic response from Trumps election or is it latest bit amplified method to push the status quo?

It seems people are unnecessarily defeatist right now when tech continues to get cheaper and more widely installed.

And if people actually believe it’s over then why aren’t we building SO2 stacks to geoengineer the temps lower to give us more time.

[Mathgod]

I think you're confusing defeatism with simple observation of reality.

Climate catastrophe isn't just some hypothetical, is already beginning to play out in the present day. Record fire seasons, dying off of coral reefs, wetlands & rainforests being wiped out, melting permafrost, vanishing glaciers, rising sea levels, etc. The planet keeps warming and we've blown right past the 1.5 degree threshold that a decade ago was seen as the goal to keep warming below.

Spoiler!

There's no need to be defeatist, but there's also no justification for complacency. The situation is urgent.

And you talk about geoengineering like it's some magical panacea that doesn't come with major risks. I think it's a mistake to be so nonchalant toward something like that.

[Fuzz]

If you believe in anthropgenic global warming having an effect on our climate, then you should also recognize we are already geoengineering. So yes, less of that would be great. But the reality is humanity isn't very good at "less". We are working within the bounds of human behaviour, and you can either try to change that(did we just not try hard enough?) or ya, be defeatist to that strategy and recognize technology is the only thing that will get out out of this one.


I also think the global warming stuff is a single small element of what we are doing to our planet. Sure, fixing that is good, but it still leaves, well, everything else we are ruining at an increasing pace too. You may not be able to convince someone of warming, but can convince them diesel and coal is giving their kids asthma. I think we'd maybe have a bit more success on the human side if we stopped treating CO2 emissions like a single issue. It's just a piece in the pollution problem.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If you believe in anthropgenic global warming having an effect on our climate, then you should also recognize we are already geoengineering. So yes, less of that would be great. But the reality is humanity isn't very good at "less". We are working within the bounds of human behaviour, and you can either try to change that(did we just not try hard enough?) or ya, be defeatist to that strategy and recognize technology is the only thing that will get out out of this one.

I think this take is a bit too simplistic. Yes there are some behaviors that we can't realistically expect to change, but there are some we can expect to change. We can't expect people to drastically reduce their standards of living, but we can expect them to stop falling for lies and disinfo coming from the climate denial folks.

And I don't think it's asking too much to expect people to care enough about their one & only home in the cosmos, to realize that yes we should raise taxes on the rich to pay for a quicker energy transition.

As for geoengineering, just because we're already doing one form of it, doesn't automatically mean it's a good idea to do another form of it. We don't know what unintended consequences could arise from doing it. It's a huge risk. That said, if we are going to do it, we need to study it extensively first.

I also think the global warming stuff is a single small element of what we are doing to our planet. Sure, fixing that is good, but it still leaves, well, everything else we are ruining at an increasing pace too. You may not be able to convince someone of warming, but can convince them diesel and coal is giving their kids asthma. I think we'd maybe have a bit more success on the human side if we stopped treating CO2 emissions like a single issue. It's just a piece in the pollution problem.

It's not a small element, it's a huge element, but there are many elements. I think Gore did a good job in his presentation talking about not only CO2, but air pollution in general.

[Fuzz]

It's not asking too much for people to do that that is the misunderstanding, it's expecting them to. I just think humanity is way too ####ty for that.


Like, you look at the progress China is making, and it's certainly not about the greater good of humanity. It makes them less dependent on external energy, and as the technology develops, it will also be cheaper.


That's where your hope and change comes from. Capitalism, not human altruism.

[Mathgod]

Where did things like the 40 hour workweek, worker's rights, a woman's right to vote, and generally speaking human rights come from? Sure as hell didn't come from capitalism. It came from a sense of right and wrong that humans have. People literally gave their lives so that other people could have those rights.

Simply saying "humans are ####ty" is far too simplistic. Sure, lots of people do lots of ####ty things. But you're painting humanity with way too wide a brush.

Most of our problems stem from ultra rich people and big corporations funding right-wing propaganda, and finding ways to pit regular people against each other.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not asking too much for people to do that that is the misunderstanding, it's expecting them to. I just think humanity is way too ####ty for that.


Like, you look at the progress China is making, and it's certainly not about the greater good of humanity. It makes them less dependent on external energy, and as the technology develops, it will also be cheaper.


That's where your hope and change comes from. Capitalism, not human altruism.

Yeah. Change on this issue is going to have to have other benefits or it will never happen and no amount of hand wringing or strident youtube videos will change that.

[Mathgod]

"It will never happen" is usually code for "I really don't want it to happen".

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Where did things like the 40 hour workweek, worker's rights, a woman's right to vote, and generally speaking human rights come from? Sure as hell didn't come from capitalism. It came from a sense of right and wrong that humans have. People literally gave their lives so that other people could have those rights.

Simply saying "humans are ####ty" is far too simplistic. Sure, lots of people do lots of ####ty things. But you're painting humanity with way too wide a brush.

Most of our problems stem from ultra rich people and big corporations funding right-wing propaganda, and finding ways to pit regular people against each other.

Who knows, maybe the pendulum swings back that way, but clearly right now it's not a collective humanity you can count on to do the right thing. It's not like all those rights you rattled off exist for most people in the world. It's a very privileged few that benefit from them on a global scale.


And I fear it's worse than just relying on human good, because destruction is so much easier than creation. Propaganda and manipulation are so much more powerful now than ever before. Humanity goes where the rich and powerful choose.


Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but looking at the choices of the world around me I think you have to be a bit naive to think we can achieve these things on moral good alone. And really, that's where this discussion started. With David Suzuki, after dedicating his entire life to trying to convince people to do the right thing, coming to the same conclusion I have. You can't count on people.

[Mathgod]

Well, humans are capable of altruism, as the examples I cited prove. And billions of people (even if still the world minority) do live in liberal western democracies and have constitutionally protected rights (for now anyway). So altruism can exist on a mass scale.

Things are, however, trending in the wrong direction. On that we agree.

Can the tide be turned back the other way? The odds may be against us, but I don't think it is zero. I don't think I could get out of bed in the morning if I thought it was zero.

[Fuzz]

I don't think you have to give up if you realize humans suck. You just need some imagination. Which is what we are saying, things like geo-engineering. Now, that's far from the perfect solution, but it is one humans are actually capable of. So instead of beating your head against a wall hoping that at some point humans will see something awful enough they'll do something(they won't, look at, say, Gaza, or starvation in Africa), you turn your efforts to places differences can be made.

It's either that, or live the angry life of Suzuki imagining people will eventually do the right thing and trying to change people in ways they will never change.

I gotta ask though, how many years can you keep going thinking this is the way? Haven't all the failures since Kyoto convinced you that strategy fails? And I think it's worse than doing nothing, because you put all your hope and effort into one basket full of holes. How many more meetings do they need to have, and which one is going to change things? Three? Five? A Hundred? That's the thing, it's not working.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Where did things like the 40 hour workweek, worker's rights, a woman's right to vote, and generally speaking human rights come from? Sure as hell didn't come from capitalism. It came from a sense of right and wrong that humans have. People literally gave their lives so that other people could have those rights.

Simply saying "humans are ####ty" is far too simplistic. Sure, lots of people do lots of ####ty things. But you're painting humanity with way too wide a brush.

Most of our problems stem from ultra rich people and big corporations funding right-wing propaganda, and finding ways to pit regular people against each other.

You're kinda jumping all over the place. IMO you should focus on this last paragraph.

Instead of being part of the continuum of line drawing where there's the climate science vs deniers, find a way to change the angle of how you view your own philosophy and ethos. IMO, this topic has gotten to the point it's like arguing politics or religion where everyone shuts down. The way I've approached the topic is to just focus on a common point.

For me, that point is, "Everyone just wants a better future than today".

Don't argue climate science, green technology or projects. Find ways to agree with everyone about things that are a better future like cheaper cost of car ownership (BEV/Hybrid/PHEV), lower cost due to less carbon taxes (green energy/inflation concerns), lower utility bills (energy efficient), better health and cleaner cities (less exhaust) etc. IMO, that's one way on how you stop playing the division game that you believe the ultra rich use to pit people against each other. Don't be mad that people don't agree with you exactly and have the exact mindset that you have. Find a way to be agreeable to any type of person you run into that meets their objectives plus makes incremental steps towards your ethos.

IMO, addressing climate change and sticking it to the man can go hand in hand. But IMO the biggest issue that has occurred is that climate change has become too preachy. It's behaving in a manner at times that is religion like or political noise. Due to that, many people are basically just shutting down and ignoring it, regardless of whether there's logic involved.

Convince them that certain tech (don't use climate change or green energy buzzwords) is an investment. It gives a rate of return over time via savings. Don't say it's good for the environment, say it's good for their pocket book and health. Then, they may consider listening. Make technological improvements that are better for the environment as the cherry on top that makes you satisfied. Tell everyone to pursue and be excited for whatever part of the sundae that excites them.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Where did things like the 40 hour workweek, worker's rights, a woman's right to vote, and generally speaking human rights come from? Sure as hell didn't come from capitalism. It came from a sense of right and wrong that humans have. People literally gave their lives so that other people could have those rights.

Those all involved extending rights and benefits to more people. Not self-sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Most of our problems stem from ultra rich people and big corporations funding right-wing propaganda, and finding ways to pit regular people against each other.

It stems from most people naturally having a pretty narrow conception of welfare, one that’s proximate socially and over time. Most people will make sacrifices to help those close to them. Or to help wider society in the short-term. It’s different when you’re talking problems and remedies on a global scale.

Most Canadians support measures to address climate change. They want governments and powerful people to do stuff. But when it comes down to making real, tangible sacrifices themselves - paying carbon taxes, reducing consumption, travelling less, etc. - most people will balk.

Not because of denial, or right-wing propaganda. But because the source of the problem is so diffuse (basically all human activity on the planet) and the time-frame for measures to have effect so distant (decades and centuries), it’s very difficult for people to see a clear positive effect from their sacrifices.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

"It will never happen" is usually code for "I really don't want it to happen".

Suggesting solutions will have to be pragmatic isn't the same as suggesting we shouldn't try to find solutions.

But feel free to continue your current plant of being a zealot - that'll for sure convince everyone that your eat the rich to save the world plan is viable.

[calgarygeologist]

From Bill Gates:

There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:

In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.

Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.

Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/three-tou...-about-climate

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

From Bill Gates:

https://www.gatesnotes.com/three-tou...-about-climate

This is a very good read. I have seen the media trying to categorize this write up as Gates saying climate change advocates are wrong and it isn't as big of a deal as its made out to be. In fact, he isn't advocating for a decline in our fight against climate change as much as ensuring that the wealthy countries continue to focus on innovation and net-zero, while ensuring that the health of the poorest countries are improved.

I’m not saying we should ignore temperature-related deaths because diseases are a bigger problem. In fact, temperature-related deaths are one of the reasons why cheap clean energy is so important—it will make heating and air conditioning more affordable everywhere.

What I am saying is that we should deal with disease and extreme weather in proportion to the suffering they cause, and that we should go after the underlying conditions that leave people vulnerable to them. While we need to limit the number of extremely hot and cold days, we also need to make sure that fewer people live in poverty and poor health so that extreme weather isn’t such a threat to them.

The focus needs to be on prosperity through green innovation, with clear goals on what innovations give the best return to help the prosperity of the poorest of us. The goal is to get the green premium to zero so that we continue to reduce emissions. How positive the transition the move to electric vehicles have been, the positive of green energy being priced on par or cheaper than fossil fuels and how our emissions projections today are lower than they were 20 years ago due to these forces and innovations.

But we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For example, a few years ago, the government of one low-income country set out to cut emissions by banning synthetic fertilizers. Farmers’ yields plummeted, there was much less food available, and prices skyrocketed. The country was hit by a crisis because the government valued reducing emissions above other important things.

It really leads to the fact that encouraging prosperity in developing countries should not be secondary to the fight against climate change, but work alongside it. We have a duty as a developed country to focus on the innovations and reducing our own emissions drastically, to allow developing countries the leeway to increase their emissions temporarily as a way to increase their prosperity, while we continue to focus on ways to eliminate emissions and pass those innovations on.

[troutman]

During Covid, Mother Earth recovered quickly in remarkable ways.

https://tv.apple.com/ca/movie/the-ye...hpb3ilgynzxmnu

Showcasing footage from around the world after an unprecedented year, “The Year Earth Changed” is a timely documentary special that takes a fresh new approach to the global lockdown and the uplifting stories that have come out of it. From hearing birdsong in deserted cities and seeing whales in Glacier Bay, to meeting capybara in suburbs across South America, people worldwide have had the chance to engage with nature like never before. In this documentary special, viewers will witness how the smallest changes in human behavior – reducing cruise ship traffic, closing beaches a few days a year, identifying more harmonious ways for humans and wildlife to coexist – can have a profound impact on nature. The documentary, narrated by David Attenborough, is a love letter to planet Earth, highlighting the ways nature’s resiliency and ability to bounce back can give us hope for the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact...he_environment

[Knalus]

If we, as a Calgary Flames community, cannot agree if we are in rebuild or not, then how in the heck can we expect humanity to respond to and properly understand climate change and the situation we actually are in?

I think we are actually doing pretty good, considering what we are working with here. Humanity's like hockey. Often disappointing, but usually worth cheering for.