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.