Climate change and human responsibility

[Slava]

I haven't got a problem with kids speaking out because it's true that they're going to live longer than people my age. What I do take exception to is that because they're children that we can't criticize them, or they're somehow beyond reproach.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

I do have a problem with the kids speaking out. The problem is they have a limited perspective, have never supported a family, never held a job and mostly never been responsible for anything in their life.

Once they do all that they can speak out.

If the house is on fire, does it really matter who speaks out? Why would they not be allowed to speak up for things?

Not that Thunberg is, but if there was a 16-year old whiz kid at math who wins math competitions doing linear algebra and calculus, I'm probably more inclined to listen to his advice on mathematics than 36-year old with a family, job, and average education.

Also, I think you might have an issue with what Thuberg is saying, rather than saying anything in general. Lots of youth join protests and are activists for various causes. Fair to say?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I agree with your sentiment, but your description describes a growing demographic of the adult population in the first world as well!

Once you get out of high school life changes a lot. Yes there are lots without a job, but for the most part at that age you are doing 'something' other than mooching off your parents and acting immature.

There is no way kids in grade 8 have any kind of perspective that means anything. Simply no way.

Also, you tend to look at things differently once you become and adult. I don't care if you live in your mom's basement, the outlook has changed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If the house is on fire, does it really matter who speaks out? Why would they not be allowed to speak up for things?

Not that Thunberg is, but if there was a 16-year old whiz kid at math who wins math competitions doing linear algebra and calculus, I'm probably more inclined to listen to his advice on mathematics than 36-year old with a family, job, and average education.

Also, I think you might have an issue with what Thuberg is saying, rather than saying anything in general. Lots of youth join protests and are activists for various causes. Fair to say?

I should rephrase. I have no issue if they exercise their right to free speech, but that means people should be allowed to tell them how limited and ignorant their perspective is.

I am a big believer in personal freedom & responsibility. I think most people change their outlook on life once they realize what both actually mean.

If we are going to make policy decisions based on kids being passionate about something, then I am worried. She is getting her 5 minutes of media time, but after that I hope she goes away never to be heard of again.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If the house is on fire, does it really matter who speaks out? Why would they not be allowed to speak up for things?

Is the house really on fire, in terms of being worried about dying from climate? Because the threat is the smallest it's ever been in human history.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

If we are going to make policy decisions based on kids being passionate about something, then I am worried. She is getting her 5 minutes of media time, but after that I hope she goes away never to be heard of again.

I don't know. Certain situations are quite appropriate. The student survivor activists from the Parkland County shooting at Stoneman Douglas had every right to follow up on the gun control debate and protest in the manner they did. Definitely had more gumption than most politicians in reaction to (another) school shooting that directly affected their lives.

I just wouldn't be so quick to jump at people because of their age. A lot of those climate change protests that Thunberg is inspiring are also being attended by adults.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Is the house really on fire, in terms of being worried about dying from climate? Because the threat is the smallest it's ever been in human history.

Really? I’d attribute that to increased warning time, preparation, improved construction, and health care.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Really? I’d attribute that to increased warning time, preparation, improved construction, and health care.

Yes to all that. Which still means Greta is the least likely generation in history of humanity to die of climate.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Yes to all that. Which still means Greta is the least likely generation in history of humanity to die of climate.

Except at this rate they’ll live with the worst air quality in human history.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Really? I’d attribute that to increased warning time, preparation, improved construction, and health care.

Do you have a 'Human Deaths from Natural Disasters' chart? That would directly address the point

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Except at this rate they’ll live with the worst air quality in human history.

Does she live in China? Real pollution and particulates have become very low in the developed world (except for the time period when the EU stupidly pushed diesel). CO2 levels have risen but it is colorless, odorless and would take 10X higher levels to even begin to have an impact on human health.

[Ozy_Flame]

In this context, "House on Fire" is an analogy for the risk posed by climate change. Using natural disasters as a measuring stick does not include the changes and consequences that climate change brings. One also has to consider calamities around (but not limited to)::

• Melting ice caps
• methane gas release from melting permafrost
• loss of arable lands (erosion, toxins, etc.)
• scarcity of clean drinking water
• stunted growth and migration patterns of natural wildlife
• economic impact on communities as a result of climate change
• loss of property
• long-term impacts of chemical changes in our air, food, water supply, etc.

Entire ecosystems and species (including humans) are threatened by changes likes these. Death rates over history alone are not enough context to suggest Earth is not at risk of climate change and the consequences it brings.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Do you have a 'Human Deaths from Natural Disasters' chart? That would directly address the point

Felt it was unnecessary to post the same graph I quoted.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Do you have a 'Human Deaths from Natural Disasters' chart? That would directly address the point

I think this chart highlights the scale of how bad climate used to affect humanity. More charts are available at https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Azure

I do have a problem with the kids speaking out. The problem is they have a limited perspective, have never supported a family, never held a job and mostly never been responsible for anything in their life.

Once they do all that they can speak out.

This is the crux of the problem. The children are the ones who are really listening to the science and are seeing the existential danger it presents.

Us adults are all trapped in a box of what we need to do to live in the current world, where they are concerned about their future.

This problem isn’t going to be solved in today’s economic box. It is going to take radica change in both the systems we live by and the standards we expect.

If you are not willing to look beyond the box that has been built around us then no, you will never see their side and think them naive. When in reality it is our inaction that is naive.

Really your whole argument proves that you aren’t listening. This isn’t about listening to children. It’s about listening to the science and understanding that if we continue going like this for much longer we are all going to be in a world of ####.

This is going to need a giant shift in thinking. They don’t have the answers, they don’t claim to have the answers. What they want is for us, those in power with the ability to find the answers, to start acting quickly and finding them. But instead we worry about our stock portfolio and number of suvs in the garage.

Humankind right now is the purest definition of fiddling while Rome burns, and only the naive are able to see that.

[DiracSpike]

They understand the science? You really think Greta has can recite to you the modelling parameters, assumptions, and various projection scenarios coherently? Or is "understand the science" just screaming that we are doomed. Everyone understands that emissions need to come down, despite what people want to believe that's not the issue. The issue is the hard part, much harder than yelling at the UN, it's finding a solution to the dilemma of the human need for vast quanitites of energy to sustain life and the need to bring down emissions. It's probably the most important quandry mankind has ever faced, and it's not black and white at all. You have developing countries contributing the most to climate change like India and China that are going to do what's best for them no matter what. You have nobel prize winners like William Nordhaus saying that the costs to lower emissions from the world economy are actually higher than the cost of climate change. All of these extenuating factors are not trivial despite people wanting them to be.

If it's not about listening to the children...then why are we listening to them? Why are we listening to Greta chide everyone when we don't need more chiding, we need answers and answers don't grow on trees to incredibly complicated problems. Luckily we have smart people working on solutions like Bill Gates and Murray Edwards (lots of O&G money into this one) carbon scrubbing enterprise. Kicking the seat and demanding the impossible gets us nowhere, but it sure scratches a narrative itch for a lot of the population to listen to the children.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't know. Certain situations are quite appropriate. The student survivor activists from the Parkland County shooting at Stoneman Douglas had every right to follow up on the gun control debate and protest in the manner they did. Definitely had more gumption than most politicians in reaction to (another) school shooting that directly affected their lives.

I just wouldn't be so quick to jump at people because of their age. A lot of those climate change protests that Thunberg is inspiring are also being attended by adults.

School shootings are directly tied to students so they have every right to speak out.

Climate change policy affects the whole world including billions of people who are trying to keep a job and work to support their family. Keep point there being 'working to support their families.' Something kids know nothing about.

See the difference?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

School shootings are directly tied to students so they have every right to speak out.

Climate change policy affects the whole world including billions of people who are trying to keep a job and work to support their family. Keep point there being 'working to support their families.' Something kids know nothing about.

See the difference?

Your point is clouded. Your point was that kids shouldn't be speaking out. They are allowed to speak out on whatever they choose.

Whether you believe they are experts in their own domain is another story, and you seem strong-willed on not believing young people because they haven't gone through life scenarios yet that adults have. And presumably you are referring to the larger pool of responsibilities side and the economics associated with that.

You are assuming they can't make coherent or informed points without walking a mile in adult's shoes. I just flat out disagree.

One can get educated/knowledgeable about a certain subject, no matter what age they are at. There are plenty of under-18 SME's on a variety of topics - motivated, learned, and have the aptitude to specialize in their domains.

One more thing - you'd be surprised just how many kids in this world actually have to work / perform labor to support their families. Don't just think about this from a Western context.

[GGG]

Global Warming is mainly a political problem not a scientific one. You need to convince people that a increase in energy cost that changes how you drive, work and travel is worth doing.

So having children screaming about it seems like a reasonable approach. You want to put a cute face on the issue that makes people care about the issues more than themselves. Like the Polar bears from the coke commercial. So in that sense children and babies make good advocates for change.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by belsarius

This is the crux of the problem. The children are the ones who are really listening to the science and are seeing the existential danger it presents.

Please.

She is of the opinion pipelines are evil and oil needs to go away.

Reality and science (yes, science) says otherwise.

Once she has a job and has to support her family she'll understand. Right now? She has no clue.

Us adults are all trapped in a box of what we need to do to live in the current world, where they are concerned about their future.

Perhaps you are. I have brought up a couple ideas in this thread that would make a significant difference. They are also easy to accomplish and have proven outcomes.

I would say most people see things that way.

What they don't see OR understand is when media monkey's start yelling and crying about those evil pipelines. Because in the reality of a working class adult, pipelines are not evil or bad. They do not make climate change worse or create pollution. In a realistic world that isn't filled with puppies and unicorns, people understand that building a pipeline to the West Coast to sell our oil is the sensible thing to do. Because it helps a 1st world country with world class oil production facilities that operates within the environmental framework of a country that is TRYING to reduce its carbon footprint sell more oil, as opposed to some Middle East or 3rd world dictatorship sending more dirty oil to the market.

They also see that regardless of what Canada does, or on an even smaller scale, Alberta or BC does, that it won't REALLY make a difference when it comes to global C02 levels. They understand that real change requires global commitment, and that it is entirely possible to enact that change while at the same time using fossil fuels. I.E. exporting our natural gas power plant technology to coal heavy countries thereby reducing their carbon emissions DRAMATICALLY in a short period of time.

This problem isn’t going to be solved in today’s economic box. It is going to take radica change in both the systems we live by and the standards we expect.

If you are not willing to look beyond the box that has been built around us then no, you will never see their side and think them naive. When in reality it is our inaction that is naive.

Really your whole argument proves that you aren’t listening. This isn’t about listening to children. It’s about listening to the science and understanding that if we continue going like this for much longer we are all going to be in a world of ####.

This is going to need a giant shift in thinking. They don’t have the answers, they don’t claim to have the answers. What they want is for us, those in power with the ability to find the answers, to start acting quickly and finding them. But instead we worry about our stock portfolio and number of suvs in the garage.

Humankind right now is the purest definition of fiddling while Rome burns, and only the naive are able to see that.

I agree, humankind is a mess right now in terms of commitment to this cause.

And like you said, it has a lot to do with the science.

The surprising thing of course is that scientifically there is a place for clean fossil fuels, and that realistically they are the immediate solution to our problems.. The problem is that the children don't understand that.

And by children I mean literally every idiot who thinks it is renewables or bust.