Climate change and human responsibility

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Everybody feels that they aren’t the problem. It’s “other people”.

Like the "Alberta doesn't need to change. It's China's fault!" crowd, right?

[Manhattanboy]

Maybe mass suicides would please them.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Yup. My doctor tells me to cut back on cheeseburgers but he's got a belly on him as well. Should I do as he says or tell him to #### off?

You should probably tell your doc to cut back on the bacon fat.

If Greta gets even 100 people to change their ways she's done way more good than harm. And if she actually gets someone who can make a big change to do something then that's immeasurably better. I don't see that happening but either way, I just think it's stupid to waste time attacking her.

But people can only change their ways to a moderate extent. Need to eat, go to school and work, heat their home, go to the doctor, have leisure time.

Do you actually think Greta is going to make people reduce their consumption? I'd bet large amounts of money that in a year the per person resource usage will be almost exactly the same.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Like the "Alberta doesn't need to change. It's China's fault!" crowd, right?

Sorry? No, not at all. I don’t think I’ve ever said that. I’m just pointing out obvious flaws here. They are obvious to you no?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by zamler

You should probably tell your doc to cut back on the bacon fat.

He's Muslim so I don't know how well that would go over.

But people can only change their ways to a moderate extent. Need to eat, go to school and work, heat their home, go to the doctor, have leisure time.

Do you actually think Greta is going to make people reduce their consumption? I'd bet large amounts of money that in a year the per person resource usage will be almost exactly the same.

I wouldn't take that bet. We're really adverse to change, especially in this culture that values convenience so much. At least she's making an effort; I think that deserves at least a tiny bit more more respect than she gets.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Sorry? No, not at all. I don’t think I’ve ever said that. I’m just pointing out obvious flaws here. They are obvious to you no?

No they're not, but I've been drinking...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I don’t have a high level of confidence we can turn things around and efforts like Greta’s are largely in vain. I’ve read numerous times that as consumers we represent a tiny amount of emissions and we’d need global cooperation from governments and the world’s biggest corporations to make any difference.

And I do believe we need a top down approach. As long as my neighbor can live his old life, there’s no way I’m giving up mine. It’s a prisoners dilemma and I don’t see it turning out well.

The problem is that the people in power (gov and corps) have the most to lose by changing the status quo. I see it as far more likely that we run this earth into the ground and only after some lengthy world wars do we see things settle down. Perhaps never and we go extinct. I just don’t see us being altruistic enough on a global scale for us to tackle climate change and the destruction of the environment.

And if we ever do get our governments to put in place policies to save the world, it’ll result in economic collapse, total upheaval of most of our daily conveniences, giving up a great deal of our leisure activities etc.

But the worst part is that the super rich won’t have to. They’ll have the money to buy carbon credits and enjoy luxuries that will seem like distant memories to the rest of us. Why? Because I have no faith we’ll develop high tech green alternatives. Instead we’ll just end up restricting many current daily conveniences to those who can afford the outrageous carbon levies required to enjoy them. The rest of us will be stuck enjoying our 3 hour commutes packed like sardines on decades old public transportation and will only be able to dream of being able to afford a plane ticket to see the world.

Anyone who thinks life for anyone but the super rich will be getting much better is dreaming. Unless of course we can organize a full on worldwide revolution. But that seems like a lot of work. You guys go first. I’ll add a themed avatar in support.


Oh and attacking Greta is not cool. But I don’t like to put limits on comedy. No public figures are exempt from humour. Especially since she’s the poster child for r/13or30.

[Itse]

The dumb thing about the incoming global climate crisis is that despite what many are saying, massively cutting down on emissions would not even be hard. No new technology is needed.

There's really only seven major things that need to get done.

- Shut down all coal mines. Build nuclear energy and renewables to replace them. All the necessary technology exists for this. Sure it's expensive, but way cheaper than dealing with climate change. Easily doable within a decade.

- End subsidies for meat and dairy production and fossil fuels. Transfer those same subsidies to low carbon footprint food production and renewable energy. Doable with a few years.

- Build tons of public transport and make it cheap and high quality. It makes for good cities anyway, and basically pays itself back when you don't have to spend the same money on new roads for new cars.

- Make fossil fuel cars things you can only buy with a special permit, explaining why you need it. Doable within a decade.

- Put in place consumer protection laws that require all household appliances to last at least 10 years, all clothes at least 2 years and all electronics at least 4 years. These are all technically trivial requirements to meet. Costs no public money. Would make most people happier, because most people don't like shopping for new things anyway.

- Make it illegal for companies to destroy unsold, unused products. No public costs. Some products would become more expensive, some would become way cheaper because there would be a lot of really cheap discounts as companies dump unsold products.

- Plant a lot of new trees. As far as fighting climate change goes, this is an extremely cheap method. If you JUST DO THIS, BUT A LOT, you could make a MASSIVE difference.

Notice that none of these are consumer level decisions. None of these require any new technology. Some would actually be obviously beneficial to consumers, and on a personal few people would need to make massive adjustments. All of this is doable within a decade.

A lot of people would have to change their diet for budget reasons, but spoken as someone who has cut down his meat use to maybe 1-2 a week, it's trivial, and this is speaking as a single parent who also has to feed a teenage athlete who is a fairly picky eater. It was about a two year process of slowly cutting down on meat, getting used to new products and coming up with some new go-to recipes, but it was never really a major chore. There already exists a ton of good high-protein choices that are perfectly fine for everyday cooking. It's just a, question of availability and price, both of which would be fixed with a change in where agricultural subsidies are sent.

[GirlySports]

That's a lot a sacrifice Itse which I agree would be good. No government would survive proposing that. People are not making adjustments.

Electronics at least 4 years? We live in an Instagram world. A running up personal debt world.

As I said earlier, the majority of people are not going to support a cause that involves sacrifice. I could give a bunch of Calgary examples.

[stampsx2]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! absolutely we should point the finger at the problem. 100%.

China and the US account for 40% of the worlds climate change while Canada accounts for 2%. Pretending Canada is the problem is nothing more than a warm feeling for Canadians or virtue signaling.

As Canadians if we really do want to make a change we need to help the real emitters like China reduce their carbon footprint. That plastic spoon that you don’t want to use here in Canada is going to do zero for the environment. ZERO.

It’s time for realistic climate change not the trendy climate change garbage that’s going on.

The doctor example is brutal cause your doctors health has nothing to do with you while the carbon emission in China does.

[PsYcNeT]

I mean, 2% is pretty bad when you consider we are only .5% of the global population.

[Red Slinger]

I'm no climate change expert but it seems like there are a lot of things that can be done to help improve (but not necessarily fix) the problem. But the biggest hurdle seems to be political will. Most of the biggest polluters on the planet like US, China, India, Russia aren't doing much from a federal government level to improve the situation. That's where Greta's message is effective. The only way to get governments to work on this issue is through increasing public pressure. Obviously, public pressure won't work directly with China and Russia but it may bring the issue to the forefront for Americans and, make no mistake, the US government is still very influential when it comes to international policy. It won't happen with the Trump administration but perhaps it will with the next one. Focusing on climate change as a major issue may also potentially help in defeating Trump in 2020.

In terms of Canada, the only reason we account for so little of the overall percentage is because of our small population. We are one of the biggest emitters per capita. How can we ask China, India or African nations to reduce their emissions without doing so ourselves? One of the obstacles to change is that Western nations have used coal, oil and other carbon intensive forms of energy to build our economies and lifestyles. But now we are telling other developing nations that, not only should they not do what we did but we won't even do what we're asking them to do now. This is why it's so important for a country like the US to take a leadership role in climate change.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I mean, 2% is pretty bad when you consider we are only .5% of the global population.

Yeah our cold climate and size of area has nothing to do with it.

Context matters.

It is not only not "pretty bad", it's damn well terrific.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yeah our cold climate and size of area has nothing to do with it.

Context matters.

It is not only not "pretty bad", it's damn well terrific.

Russia has 2/3 the emissions per capita. I think their climate is pretty cold and their size of area has something to do with it. China is also pretty big and has less than 30% of the emissions per capita.

Let’s stop with the excuses and just admit that our lifestyle is pretty carbon intensive compared to the rest of the world. Sure we account for a small overall percentage but trying to blame everyone else while doing little ourselves really makes us some pretty big hypocrites to the rest of the world.

[GirlySports]

Red Slinger. It's not a lack of political will. It's a lack of people will. And the people will vote out the politicians that inconvenience them.

Heck we live in a city, Calgary, where people made a fuss about a $25 million peace bridge. How can other green initiatives be pushed forward? Nobody want to be the first to pay to sacrifice.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Red Slinger. It's not a lack of political will. It's a lack of people will. And the people will vote out the politicians that inconvenience them.

Heck we live in a city, Calgary, where people made a fuss about a $25 million peace bridge. How can other green initiatives be pushed forward? Nobody want to be the first to pay to sacrifice.

And the bike lane overreaction.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Itse

The dumb thing about the incoming global climate crisis is that despite what many are saying, massively cutting down on emissions would not even be hard. No new technology is needed.

There's really only seven major things that need to get done.

- Shut down all coal mines. Build nuclear energy and renewables to replace them. All the necessary technology exists for this. Sure it's expensive, but way cheaper than dealing with climate change. Easily doable within a decade.

- End subsidies for meat and dairy production and fossil fuels. Transfer those same subsidies to low carbon footprint food production and renewable energy. Doable with a few years.

- Build tons of public transport and make it cheap and high quality. It makes for good cities anyway, and basically pays itself back when you don't have to spend the same money on new roads for new cars.

- Make fossil fuel cars things you can only buy with a special permit, explaining why you need it. Doable within a decade.

- Put in place consumer protection laws that require all household appliances to last at least 10 years, all clothes at least 2 years and all electronics at least 4 years. These are all technically trivial requirements to meet. Costs no public money. Would make most people happier, because most people don't like shopping for new things anyway.

- Make it illegal for companies to destroy unsold, unused products. No public costs. Some products would become more expensive, some would become way cheaper because there would be a lot of really cheap discounts as companies dump unsold products.

- Plant a lot of new trees. As far as fighting climate change goes, this is an extremely cheap method. If you JUST DO THIS, BUT A LOT, you could make a MASSIVE difference.

Notice that none of these are consumer level decisions. None of these require any new technology. Some would actually be obviously beneficial to consumers, and on a personal few people would need to make massive adjustments. All of this is doable within a decade.

A lot of people would have to change their diet for budget reasons, but spoken as someone who has cut down his meat use to maybe 1-2 a week, it's trivial, and this is speaking as a single parent who also has to feed a teenage athlete who is a fairly picky eater. It was about a two year process of slowly cutting down on meat, getting used to new products and coming up with some new go-to recipes, but it was never really a major chore. There already exists a ton of good high-protein choices that are perfectly fine for everyday cooking. It's just a, question of availability and price, both of which would be fixed with a change in where agricultural subsidies are sent.

Pretty much impossible to argue with any of this and when you lay it out this way it is a little weird these things haven’t already happened. The whole putting a minimum cap on planned obsolescence of appliances or electronics is a great idea that 99% of people would be on board with. Appliances will in turn get more expensive but the overall model would make way more sense and so much less wasteful.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Itse

The dumb thing about the incoming global climate crisis is that despite what many are saying, massively cutting down on emissions would not even be hard. No new technology is needed.

There's really only seven major things that need to get done.

- Shut down all coal mines. Build nuclear energy and renewables to replace them. All the necessary technology exists for this. Sure it's expensive, but way cheaper than dealing with climate change. Easily doable within a decade.

- End subsidies for meat and dairy production and fossil fuels. Transfer those same subsidies to low carbon footprint food production and renewable energy. Doable with a few years.

- Build tons of public transport and make it cheap and high quality. It makes for good cities anyway, and basically pays itself back when you don't have to spend the same money on new roads for new cars.

- Make fossil fuel cars things you can only buy with a special permit, explaining why you need it. Doable within a decade.

- Put in place consumer protection laws that require all household appliances to last at least 10 years, all clothes at least 2 years and all electronics at least 4 years. These are all technically trivial requirements to meet. Costs no public money. Would make most people happier, because most people don't like shopping for new things anyway.

- Make it illegal for companies to destroy unsold, unused products. No public costs. Some products would become more expensive, some would become way cheaper because there would be a lot of really cheap discounts as companies dump unsold products.

- Plant a lot of new trees. As far as fighting climate change goes, this is an extremely cheap method. If you JUST DO THIS, BUT A LOT, you could make a MASSIVE difference.

Notice that none of these are consumer level decisions. None of these require any new technology. Some would actually be obviously beneficial to consumers, and on a personal few people would need to make massive adjustments. All of this is doable within a decade.

A lot of people would have to change their diet for budget reasons, but spoken as someone who has cut down his meat use to maybe 1-2 a week, it's trivial, and this is speaking as a single parent who also has to feed a teenage athlete who is a fairly picky eater. It was about a two year process of slowly cutting down on meat, getting used to new products and coming up with some new go-to recipes, but it was never really a major chore. There already exists a ton of good high-protein choices that are perfectly fine for everyday cooking. It's just a, question of availability and price, both of which would be fixed with a change in where agricultural subsidies are sent.

Your ideas don’t hit 2030 targets and the developing world was impoverished for longer.

You also caused a massive recession with the banning of internal combustion engine cars without a substitute. The workers in cities revolted and overthrew the governments who promised to bring back cars.

Geo-Engineering needs to start now. Also the tree idea. Canada’s 2% of global emmissions means we could plant 2% of the 1.5 trillion trees required which is only 30 billion trees. So with tree planting coating between .3 - $1 Canada can completely offset its emissions for 1-3 billion per year for 10 years. It’s by far the cheapest solution.

[GirlySports]

Not 99%. People want the latest greatest thing.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Heck we live in a city, Calgary, where people made a fuss about a $25 million peace bridge. How can other green initiatives be pushed forward? Nobody want to be the first to pay to sacrifice.

And that in itself was absolutely hilarious at the time, considering how much more money is spent in this city on a yearly basis - that doesn't get talked about - for interchanges, overpasses and road projects to support Calgary's absolutely environmentally friendly urban sprawl.