Climate change and human responsibility

[Street Pharmacist]

Ah yes. People who use their voices to advocate for fighting climate change is the real problem. Yup. That's not silly at all.

The ONLY way this gets solved is when we have enough people saying the status quo isn't good enough. It's only going to be solved when the easy road isn't politically expedient. That takes advocacy and I'd argue millions of kids and people marching in the streets will do more to change things than sparing your hurt feelings. Your anger and hurt feelings is your problem, not hers.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Ah yes. People who use their voices to advocate for fighting climate change is the real problem. Yup. That's not silly at all.

The ONLY way this gets solved is when we have enough people saying the status quo isn't good enough. It's only going to be solved when the easy road isn't politically expedient. That takes advocacy and I'd argue millions of kids and people marching in the streets will do more to change things than sparing your hurt feelings. Your anger and hurt feelings is your problem, not hers.

Suppose people marched in the streets and forced change. What would that change be? Give us specifics.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by zamler

Suppose people marched in the streets and forced change. What would that change be? Give us specifics.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear what you're getting at here. Are you wanting specific policy changes that have resulted from people marching? Because that's a question that simply can't be answered and you know that. If you want me to link one change to Greta's advocacy I'm not going to have that conversation because it's an extremely silly argument.



But public pressure forces change. We're already seeing some of that change in the corporate world and in government policy. It's impossible to put any one change to the advocacy of one person. But change is afoot and I could list a thousand different things that have happened over the last year, but you can easily Google that yourself




Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by zamler

We all buy what these corporations produce. The problem is us, all of us.

You're so so so so close. We all buy the corporate products. So how do we change that? Hmm... Tough nut to crack.


Maybe we'll all just come to that realization on our own! Sure would be faster if someone could, I don't know, advocate for that? Hmm. Maybe some policy decisions could speed that up? Though the public would have to support it to make it political feasible. Maybe that would work if someone could advocate for that!

[Street Pharmacist]

I don't want to edit or delete the previous posts, because they stand on their own as far as the points I'm trying to make, but I shouldn't have that tone and I apologize. That's not fair.


The issue at heart is this: we have an existential crisis mixed with political roadblocks because of partisanship. No scientist can look at this issue and not conclude we're almost too late. You also cannot help but look at the current a vs b political climate and see how difficult it's going to be to get the changes necessary.


So when I hear fatalistic arguments like "no one wants to change", or "activist x is a hypocrite", it gets my blood boiling because it's trying to change the subject. If we need the change for my children to have any sort of world worthy living in, I don't care about anything except the message and that it's getting people to want change. I don't care if they burnt coal to get to the podium.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm sorry, I'm not clear what you're getting at here. Are you wanting specific policy changes that have resulted from people marching?

For starters yes, and even more specifically I want to know exactly what will be done to reduce our carbon footprint.

Because that's a question that simply can't be answered and you know that. If you want me to link one change to Greta's advocacy I'm not going to have that conversation because it's an extremely silly argument.

Honestly don't know what you're getting at here. I've read a fair bit of her advocacy and I'm not against it in spirit, but it doesn't actually do anything. That's the problem, talking about it, marching, demanding change is all hot air it doesn't do a damn thing. How do I know? Because history, this current government when elected said they have a plan to fight climate change. Since then, nothing has changed. We buy the same stuff, use the same amount of energy from the same sources. Canada's carbon footprint is basically the same as 6 years ago.

You don't see any of this as concerning? Posturing, finger pointing etc. doesn't solve a thing.

But public pressure forces change. We're already seeing some of that change in the corporate world and in government policy. It's impossible to put any one change to the advocacy of one person. But change is afoot and I could list a thousand different things that have happened over the last year, but you can easily Google that yourself

"google it"

Thanks that is very helpful. I have, many times. I think about this stuff all the time. I want desperately to move past the posturing stage and see substantial progress.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're so so so so close. We all buy the corporate products. So how do we change that? Hmm... Tough nut to crack.


Maybe we'll all just come to that realization on our own! Sure would be faster if someone could, I don't know, advocate for that? Hmm. Maybe some policy decisions could speed that up? Though the public would have to support it to make it political feasible. Maybe that would work if someone could advocate for that!

Like WHAT? Why is this such a hard question.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't want to edit or delete the previous posts, because they stand on their own as far as the points I'm trying to make, but I shouldn't have that tone and I apologize. That's not fair.

I'm not offended no need to apologize, not to me anyway.

So when I hear fatalistic arguments like "no one wants to change", or "activist x is a hypocrite", it gets my blood boiling because it's trying to change the subject. If we need the change for my children to have any sort of world worthy living in, I don't care about anything except the message and that it's getting people to want change. I don't care if they burnt coal to get to the podium.

I completely disagree. Pointing out the hypocrisy is critically important in my view. If someone with vast wealth and influence can't live with a greatly reduced carbon footprint how can the average person? New technology is always expensive, the masses can't afford to drastically reduce their carbon output.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

You still fail.

Me: "A U.S. politician told Greta Thunberg that the United States should not take action on climate change until China reduces their emissions."
You: "YOU SAID THE NAME Greta Thunberg! I think I'll go off half-cocked and have a rant about Greta Thunberg! I win the Internets! Woot!"

-=-=-=-=-

Did you mean you want me, personally, to show you how to be better by example? You are welcome to come visit my place. Or you can PM me and I can do a Zoom call. I'm far from perfect, but I think I have a fair setup here. This has always been an important issue to me and many of my life choices have been based on climate change, including my wife and I deciding not to have children. Neither of us have a car; we bicycle everywhere. We use the clothesline out back to dry clothes and virtually everything in the house is second-hand (appliances, furniture, clothes). We do have a long way to go; and certainly are not perfect but we are trying to do our best and continue to do better in the future. Given that we both work from home, both needing a computer for our job, we have been saving for solar panels, but for now we are paying the extra for Bullfrog Power. Again, I'm not sure your "show me" was meant to be directed towards me, but I'd be happy to talk.

your decision to not have children was solely (or mostly) based on climate change?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Whatever the reason, based on his posts in this thread, I think we can genuinely thank him for making that decision.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

your decision to not have children was solely (or mostly) based on climate change?

I think it's pretty valid to be concerned with what kind of world you're bringing a child into. Hard to argue that most future children and any of those brought into the world over the last 20 years aren't going to be faced with some immense hardships unless we drastically reverse course on some of these things.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think it's pretty valid to be concerned with what kind of world you're bringing a child into. Hard to argue that most future children and any of those brought into the world over the last 20 years aren't going to be faced with some immense hardships unless we drastically reverse course on some of these things.

'Immense hardships' would accurately describe the fate of almost all humans that have ever been brought into existence.

I would guess that most are glad to have had the opportunity, regardless of those hardships.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

'Immense hardships' would accurately describe the fate of almost all humans that have ever been brought into existence.

I would guess that most are glad to have had the opportunity, regardless of those hardships.

Really? You think people who died from dehydration, extreme violence, etc., were just happy to go for the ride?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really? You think people who died from dehydration, extreme violence, etc., were just happy to go for the ride?

I think this is a really hard one for anyone to speak definitively to.

I'm sure there have been parents who have lost children very young for various reasons that take solace that they had a lot of happy days before that point. I guess you hope it was always worth the ride, but I'm sure that's not always the case.

[Street Pharmacist]

There's lots of ways to skin a cat, so here's some political advocacy avenues and policy direction rather than specifics as they're less important.

1) Continue to call out O&G companies for spending money pushing pseudoscience to confuse people. Heritage Foundation, "Friends Of Science" and the like. Part of the rain for political gridlock is these @$$holes misrepresent scientific information to sow doubt.

2) Continue to push policy that decreases fossil fuel subsidies.

3) Use governmental policies to make great exchangers and electrical heating cheaper than gas for home heating where that makes sense.

4) Build infrastructure and incentivize electric vehicle adoption

5) Fund innovation in existing industries to help find answers to decarbonise.

6) Make making CO2 more expensive.



Carbon taxes will soon be in most countries. That was unthinkable not long ago. Electric vehicle adoption is also about to explode. These are the result of previous advocacy. The more people are in favor, the more likely the politicians are to act. The UK is a great example

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think this is a really hard one for anyone to speak definitively to.

I'm sure there have been parents who have lost children very young for various reasons that take solace that they had a lot of happy days before that point. I guess you hope it was always worth the ride, but I'm sure that's not always the case.

I think if you told a prospective parent that there was a high-probability that their child would from starvation or dehydration, I think most people would have second thoughts.

I'm not saying that that's what's going to happen in the future, just that it's not crazy to be reluctant based on those thoughts.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think if you told a prospective parent that there was a high-probability that their child would from starvation or dehydration, I think most people would have second thoughts.

I'm not saying that that's what's going to happen in the future, just that it's not crazy to be reluctant based on those thoughts.

I'm in agreement that it's not crazy to be reluctant. I had the same thoughts before deciding to have kids.

One other angle is maybe could raise them to be people that cared for others and the greater good, and be part of the solution.

I also refused to have more kids than the replacement value.

I'm just not sure that I can make the call that, for example, living 40 years of an amazing life and they dying of dehydration isn't a tradeoff that some unborn kid would jump at.

For me personally, I would take my life so far if it was at the cost of a bit of a nasty death. It's been mostly great, and I'd rather have had this than nothing.

[Matata]

Any children you don't have will be replaced through immigration, the government has growth models it needs to follow, with or without your blessing.


Have kids and raise them well, the world always needs more of that.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Matata

Any children you don't have will be replaced through immigration, the government has growth models it needs to follow, with or without your blessing.


Have kids and raise them well, the world always needs more of that.

I don't think the argument is that one couple not having any children would be better for the environment, but "can I bring a child into this world and expose somebody I love to the perils of this new world?"

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't think the argument is that one couple not having any children would be better for the environment, but "can I bring a child into this world and expose somebody I love to the perils of this new world?"

Up until 100 years ago every child faced far far worse issues of food security, disease, poverty, war, etc... than any child is likely to face in the near future. Not having children because they might not grow up in the baby boomer world of excess seems a little extreme to me. As it currently stands, the quality of life in the Western world continues to improve over time. Everything points to indicators like life expectancy continuing to improve.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

Up until 100 years ago every child faced far far worse issues of food security, disease, poverty, war, etc... than any child is likely to face in the near future. Not having children because they might not grow up in the baby boomer world of excess seems a little extreme to me. As it currently stands, the quality of life in the Western world continues to improve over time. Everything points to indicators like life expectancy continuing to improve.

"Better than 100 years ago" /= good.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"Better than 100 years ago" /= good.

And what if this climate disaster some are predicting to happen doesn't happen. What if issues like food security, disease, life expectancy, only continue to improve. Even the most alarmist credible views on climate change don't have the standard of living in places like Canada plunging dramatically.

IMO the decision not to have children is a very drastic one people are making in the face of a relatively remote possibility. In 80 years Canada will be an inhospitable wasteland? I'm curious as to what the specific events people think will occur in 80 years that will make life so unbearable for their potential children is. Even 50 years ago there was a significant chance of a nuclear war.