Climate change and human responsibility

[GGG]

Originally Posted by edslunch

In time to avoid or reverse the well-documented predicted effects of climate change including mass population dislocation, crop failure, etc. Ironically the article you quoted listed climate change as one of the few real threats we should be serious about addressing.

I think running out of food used to be similar to Clomate change. In the 1960s you could forecast that we would not have to feed the current population of the world. Improvements in crop technology solved this issue (or at least deferred it in time).

I think the lesson is we should do the things we can do now but not worry about the things we can’t solve yet. So shuttering coal and replacing with nuclear, solar, wind and even gas should be actively being done but we shouldn’t worry about oils used for plastics or coal in steal because technology likely provides soluatioms eventually.

So plant trees and build Nukes and then let the price drops of batteries and solar panels take care of the rest.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's weird because during the 70's gas crises countries limited speed, and crippled vehicles in the name of conservation. Nowadays we have 400HP giant grocery getters, and very little regulatory action. Governments could insist vehicles get built to a better standard, but do not. So consumers take it as assign it's not important.


I couldn't imagine the outrage if they tried to re-introduce the types of restrictions that existed int he 70's. But maybe it's time they do more, because people don't give a crap when left to their own decisions.

I wrote a paper in high school (mid-nineties) about how fuel consumption stickers on the backs of all vehicles would help save fuel. Huge ugly red ones for the SUVS, little green ones for good gas consumption, with various gradients in between. Basically just letting everyone know if you were a tool or not.

Still think it would've been a good idea.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I wrote a paper in high school (mid-nineties) about how fuel consumption stickers on the backs of all vehicles would help save fuel. Huge ugly red ones for the SUVS, little green ones for good gas consumption, with various gradients in between. Basically just letting everyone know if you were a tool or not.
Still think it would've been a good idea.

Calvin says hi.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Calvin says hi.

Yeah, turns out the opposite stickers were popular in Alberta.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's weird because during the 70's gas crises countries limited speed, and crippled vehicles in the name of conservation. Nowadays we have 400HP giant grocery getters, and very little regulatory action. Governments could insist vehicles get built to a better standard, but do not. So consumers take it as assign it's not important.


I couldn't imagine the outrage if they tried to re-introduce the types of restrictions that existed int he 70's. But maybe it's time they do more, because people don't give a crap when left to their own decisions.

It's almost as if Automakers pay large sums of money to politicians to ensure that regulation never happens...
But that would go against the idea that corporations have no role in this amirite?

[blender]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is true. So I assume you have sworn off consuming oil and all products produced and transported with oil?

Who said anything about my own personal behavior? The point I was contradicting was the assertion that human survival requires oil.

[blender]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I always look at SUV prevalence as the surest sign that we are, in fact, doomed. As a society, we couldn't even collectively decide that personal consumption of stupid, harmful and easily replaceable automobiles was actually morally reprehensible.

There's plenty blame to go around for all of humanity's crap decisions over the past thirty years. I think we are past the point of no return on climate change, and billions will likely die because of our particular era's choices. Plenty of moral culpability to go around for future humans to dissect.

We'll be the index fossil buried in our own debris.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's weird because during the 70's gas crises countries limited speed, and crippled vehicles in the name of conservation. Nowadays we have 400HP giant grocery getters, and very little regulatory action. Governments could insist vehicles get built to a better standard, but do not. So consumers take it as assign it's not important.

Most of those regulations are still there, and the emissions standards which choked the V8s of the 70s are much higher than ever. But technology and engineering improvements means that modern ICE drivetrains can meet those regulations, have pretty good fuel efficiency and still continue to get more powerful. And it's not just vehicles getting bigger that's causing the weight gains, but also improved passive and active safety features and luxury items.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Most of those regulations are still there, and the emissions standards which choked the V8s of the 70s are much higher than ever. But technology and engineering improvements means that modern ICE drivetrains can meet those regulations, have pretty good fuel efficiency and still continue to get more powerful. And it's not just vehicles getting bigger that's causing the weight gains, but also improved passive and active safety features and luxury items.

Sure, but at the time those restrictions were very powerful. Now, not so much. So I'm suggesting maybe governments should be doing more on their end, since clearly manufacturers can make obscenely powerful vehicles and still meet the regulations.

[CliffFletcher]

Consumers also don’t seem to be as price-sensitive to mileage and fuel costs as they were in the 70s and 80s. They’ll complain about gas prices, but not enough to deter them from buying a huge vehicle. The value of safety (imaginary or not) trumps economizing.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Consumers also don’t seem to be as price-sensitive to mileage and fuel costs as they were in the 70s and 80s. They’ll complain about gas prices, but not enough to deter them from buying a huge vehicle. The value of safety status (imaginary or not) trumps economizing.

My take.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Consumers also don’t seem to be as price-sensitive to mileage and fuel costs as they were in the 70s and 80s. They’ll complain about gas prices, but not enough to deter them from buying a huge vehicle. The value of safety (imaginary or not) trumps economizing.

midsize SUVs (Escape, CRV, RAV4) get really good gas mileage. Sub 10l/100k city. I haven’t looked at the cost of gas/capital today relative to income today but I suspect the operating costs of a mid size SUV are lower than the operating costs of a mid size 70s car.

I think that Gas remains relatively inexpensive in terms of the costs to run your life.

[Azure]

Considering the average commute time, I'd agree with GGG. In terms of how much people actually drive, the cost of gas is relatively inexpensive per year.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by blender

Who said anything about my own personal behavior? The point I was contradicting was the assertion that human survival requires oil.

My point was that "survival" is quite a relative term. The vast majority of human existence would be completely untenable to every single person reading this.

Things that we depend on hydrocarbons for (hot water, space heating, transportation, nitrogen fertilizer for food) are basic necessities. You won't give them up to reduce emissions, and neither will everyone else. So what people used to do is completely irrelevant. We need forward looking solutions.

Saying we survived before hydrocarbons is a garbage comment - you were expecting a snarky response and got one.

Edited to add: this doesn't mean I don't think climate change is a human caused issue we should work on. But putting forward pre-oil lifestyles like some kind of option is a great way for nobody to take that problem seriously.

[blender]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

My point was that "survival" is quite a relative term. The vast majority of human existence would be completely untenable to every single person reading this.

Things that we depend on hydrocarbons for (hot water, space heating, transportation, nitrogen fertilizer for food) are basic necessities. You won't give them up to reduce emissions, and neither will everyone else. So what people used to do is completely irrelevant. We need forward looking solutions.

Saying we survived before hydrocarbons is a garbage comment - you were expecting a snarky response and got one.

Edited to add: this doesn't mean I don't think climate change is a human caused issue we should work on. But putting forward pre-oil lifestyles like some kind of option is a great way for nobody to take that problem seriously.

I took "survival" literally because I do believe that this is survival issue, survival of the species.

There are people right here on this board who would be able to survive a pre-historic lifestyle. Many people in the world have the skills. Not sure why you believe otherwise.

Please don't bother telling me what I won't give up or what I think about reducing emissions, or what you think I expect when I post here as you don't know and saying you do makes you look like a clown.

I never suggested we go to a pre-carbon lifestyle; I was just correcting BoLevi's inane comment because I prefer to stick to the facts.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by blender

There are people right here on this board who would be able to survive a pre-historic lifestyle. Many people in the world have the skills. Not sure why you believe otherwise.

Could and won't come from different verbs. Many people COULD reduce lifestyle back to pre-historic levels to save on emissions, but they WON'T. Given you're posting on message board on the internet that includes you.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Could and won't come from different verbs. Many people COULD reduce lifestyle back to pre-historic levels to save on emissions, but they WON'T. Given you're posting on message board on the internet that includes you.

But his argument was not that they would do it, only that they could do it/would be able to do it, so what are you saying?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But his argument was not that they would do it, only that they could do it/would be able to do it, so what are you saying?

That its irrelevant. If something is theoretically possible but will never actually happen then it doesn't matter.

[blender]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That its irrelevant. If something is theoretically possible but will never actually happen then it doesn't matter.

If that's how you feel then why are you wasting your time trying to argue about it? You're the one who confused survival with modern convenience and then went on to make a bunch of assumptions about people you don't know based on your own faulty world view. Then when questioned about it you declare the discussion irrelevant.

[Azure]

This week, on land north of Toronto that previously burned in a wildfire, drones are hovering over fields and firing seed pods into the ground, planting native pine and spruce trees to help restore habitat for birds. Flash Forest, the Canadian startup behind the project, plans to use its technology to plant 40,000 trees in the area this month. By the end of the year, as it expands to other regions, it will plant hundreds of thousands of trees. By 2028, the startup aims to have planted a full 1 billion trees.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90504789...tm_content=rss