10 ms·

I don't like sensationalism as it clouds the mind with short-lived buzzes. Instead of always trying to alarm people of the big invisible terror lurking in the d

I don't like sensationalism as it clouds the mind with short-lived buzzes. Instead of always trying to alarm people of the big invisible terror lurking in the dark, we should educate people on how to handle the situation. What are the scenarios? What can we do ourselves for those scenarios (not to prevent, but to prepare)? Which cities and countries will be lost at what point in time? How do we protect ourselves? Be constructive, be creative.

tempestn 9y ago
I agree with you, but I don't think it's wrong that there's a general feeling that we're working on this problem, and we're getting better. Look at all these solar panels and electric vehicles we're reading about. We know there's still C02 being pumped out, but at least we're starting to get a handle on it. This shows that actually we're not. We've got a positive second derivative here. The current path leads pretty quickly to likely disaster. If you really believe that, maybe you're willing to accept more pain (economic, etc.) to make a significant difference than you otherwise would. Personally, I live in BC, which is about to have a provincial election. I've been struggling with my choice, because while I generally align more with the NDP (left-wing party) on ideals, a number of their platform pieces seem misguided or vote-buying at best. The Liberal party (which is really a conservative party in all but name) doesn't really align with my values, but they do seem more competent, and less likely to make poor fiscal policy. However, one key difference between their platforms is on expansion of natural gas extraction, and environmental issues in general. Reading this article got me thinking that climate change is a big enough issue that it should probably trump other concerns.
- deckiedan 9y ago
  Please, please write to your local party reps in all those parties explaining your dilemma! This will probably have as much or more value in terms of policy change as a vote. Parties lump so many disparate issues together, they need to hear what individual issues are actually important to the rest of us.
- RandyRanderson 9y ago
  Are you referring to the "competent" housing policies of the Libs that have made BC into the biggest housing bubble in the entire world? I'm not sure the conservatives (ultra-right) or NDP could have done this simply because their bases would not let them (for different reasons). So because of this competence we're in a sitch such that we can't stop the housing boom for fear of an entire collapse of the BC economy? Please explain how either other party would have done a worse job.
  - tempestn 9y ago
    No, I'm not referring specifically to Liberal housing policies. I'm not aware of any aspects of the NDP platform that would improve the housing affordability problem in BC, but I'd be interested to know about them if they exist. Might make my choice even easier. Their website just calls for "strong action", but doesn't specify what it should be: https://www.bcndp.ca/housing-speculation https://www.bcndp.ca/housing-speculation As far as NDP policies I find questionable, a few are -Remove tolls on lower mainland bridges. - this just seems like blatant vote-buying. It will worsen congestion and pollution, and reduce provincial revenue, while benefiting a small segment of the provincial population. -(Further) delay acceptance of ride-sharing companies (Uber, etc.) - The NDP has always been the "workers' party," so I assume their interests align with the taxi drivers' union here. The policy seems poor though, from both environmental and fiscal perspectives (again). Also seems unwise politically, and I get nervous about a party when they do something that's both unwise and unpopular. -Significantly increase minimum wage. - I support initiatives to reduce inequality. However, I don't agree that increasing minimum wage from $10.85 to $15 is the best approach. I expect it will have a significant impact on both businesses and minimum-wage employees. (Positive for some; negative for those who can no longer find work.) I believe there are better ways to help people, and that minimum wage tends to be chosen because it doesn't have a direct impact on the provincial deficit, so it's a 'free' promise. Increasing minimum wage with inflation is one thing, but a ~40% jump is another. Those are a few things. Many of their other positions I agree with in theory, but there are few details presented so far. (Full platform is yet to be released.) Unfortunately the details that they have put forward, like those above, I find worrisome. That said, I will still likely vote NDP (or possibly Green if my riding doesn't look competitive) since I do expect they will be better for the environment (removal of tolls and blocking of ride-share notwithstanding), and I support most of their goals, even if I don't expect they'll be entirely competent in achieving them.
flukus 9y ago
Is it sensationalism when it's accurately describing something truly sensational?
- gambiting 9y ago
  If both temperature and CO2 levels set new records every single year, then it's stoping sensational - it becomes expected. I'm still hoping to hear solid solutions that will work on a global level, and so far, there aren't any. As a matter of fact, with the global rise of populism it looks like in some areas, the world is going backwards. Leaked UK government memo says the environmental protections and pollution limits will have to be scaled back for UK to remain competitive after brexit. Trump is actively fighting environment protection. Cutting down of the amazon forest has slowed down in the last 20 years due to huge amount of international pressure, only to accelerate to unprecedented levels now that most of this pressure is gone. I mean sure, Americans and other wealthy nations buying millions of electric cars is going to help somewhat, but I almost think that the world truly needs to get fucked over this, so that people on every level feel the effects or they won't care. Countries will start caring once they start losing coastal cities, corporations will start caring once global warming destroys their profits. I'm almost certain there is no other way.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > If both temperature and CO2 levels set new records every single year, then it's stoping sensational - it becomes expected. The increase isn't the sensational part, the acceleration is. That the acceleration is happening despite emissions plateauing is even more sensational, it may be the first indication that we've hit a limit in the earths ability to absorb excess CO2.
  - nol13 9y ago
    It's really is depressing seeing the stuff about the great barrier reef etc. Hard to hopeful that we can change course when every indication is that we as a species are not capable of cooperating on such a level. And even if everyone on earth agreed, who's going to enforce such policies? Would probably require a literal New World Order. Have fun getting the conspiritards (who would have been proven right) to go along with that one. Hence, my "duck and cover" post elsewhere in this thread, that I sincerely hope was more joke than not.
anigbrowl 9y ago
We already do this. Go read up on how towns in Florida regularly get flooded by seawater and development continues apace. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032016/ft-lauderdale-climate-change-global-warming-rising-sea-level https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032016/ft-lauderdale-cl...
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Miami Beach has already spent about $400 million to keep the ocean at bay. At some point, it becomes unsustainable.
  - flukus 9y ago
    They seem to be trying to prevent the inevitable. I wonder how much it would cost to raise the city by a floor or two and embrace their future island?
vesak 9y ago
>Be constructive, be creative. Ok, solution time. Let's immediately ban everyone who denies that climate change is human made from all positions of power. That implies stripping them of both titles and wealth.
- retrogradeorbit 9y ago
  I vote we kill you first. You breathe out CO2, right? EDIT: Nice silent edit there. Let me just quote what you just deleted from your comment "Since they won't probably give in voluntarily and since many of them are already in power, this further implies a violent uprising."
  - tehwalrus 9y ago
    Breathing is turning carbon that was already in the cycle into CO2. You don't eat coal, or drink crude oil, do you?
  - scarmig 9y ago
    "I vote we kill you first" If you're going to troll, at least get your science right. Breathing out CO2 adds zero net CO2 to the atmosphere, because it comes from food you ate, which itself came from CO2 in the atmosphere. The oil and gas that an individual uses to survive, on the other hand, is literally deadly. So you are at the verge of having a point: we could lower CO2 usage by killing people. However, a much more direct and reasonable fix to the problem is to disincentive the use and production of that particular poison. There are a couple ways to do this, but I'd argue a steep carbon tax, with proceeds used for funding sequestration research and programs, is the most humane solution to the monstrous evil of carbon pollution.
    - retrogradeorbit 9y ago
      I'm not trolling. I am feeding back to this person calling for outright violence their own attitude. It's attitudes like vesak's that will lead us to blood filled streets. Hate breeds hate. And eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.
nol13 9y ago
duck and cover.
tianlins 9y ago
The gap between sensationalism and pragmatism is measurement. The graph shows an accelerated growth of CO2 emission, but lacks exact profiling data to deduce reasonable actions.
delegate 9y ago
Well, in order to prepare for something, people first need to understand what they are preparing for and why. TFA has the why..

tempestn 9y ago

I agree with you, but I don't think it's wrong that there's a general feeling that we're working on this problem, and we're getting better. Look at all these solar panels and electric vehicles we're reading about. We know there's still C02 being pumped out, but at least we're starting to get a handle on it. This shows that actually we're not. We've got a positive second derivative here. The current path leads pretty quickly to likely disaster. If you really believe that, maybe you're willing to accept more pain (economic, etc.) to make a significant difference than you otherwise would. Personally, I live in BC, which is about to have a provincial election. I've been struggling with my choice, because while I generally align more with the NDP (left-wing party) on ideals, a number of their platform pieces seem misguided or vote-buying at best. The Liberal party (which is really a conservative party in all but name) doesn't really align with my values, but they do seem more competent, and less likely to make poor fiscal policy. However, one key difference between their platforms is on expansion of natural gas extraction, and environmental issues in general. Reading this article got me thinking that climate change is a big enough issue that it should probably trump other concerns.

deckiedan 9y ago
Please, please write to your local party reps in all those parties explaining your dilemma! This will probably have as much or more value in terms of policy change as a vote. Parties lump so many disparate issues together, they need to hear what individual issues are actually important to the rest of us.
RandyRanderson 9y ago
Are you referring to the "competent" housing policies of the Libs that have made BC into the biggest housing bubble in the entire world? I'm not sure the conservatives (ultra-right) or NDP could have done this simply because their bases would not let them (for different reasons). So because of this competence we're in a sitch such that we can't stop the housing boom for fear of an entire collapse of the BC economy? Please explain how either other party would have done a worse job.
- tempestn 9y ago
  No, I'm not referring specifically to Liberal housing policies. I'm not aware of any aspects of the NDP platform that would improve the housing affordability problem in BC, but I'd be interested to know about them if they exist. Might make my choice even easier. Their website just calls for "strong action", but doesn't specify what it should be: https://www.bcndp.ca/housing-speculation https://www.bcndp.ca/housing-speculation As far as NDP policies I find questionable, a few are -Remove tolls on lower mainland bridges. - this just seems like blatant vote-buying. It will worsen congestion and pollution, and reduce provincial revenue, while benefiting a small segment of the provincial population. -(Further) delay acceptance of ride-sharing companies (Uber, etc.) - The NDP has always been the "workers' party," so I assume their interests align with the taxi drivers' union here. The policy seems poor though, from both environmental and fiscal perspectives (again). Also seems unwise politically, and I get nervous about a party when they do something that's both unwise and unpopular. -Significantly increase minimum wage. - I support initiatives to reduce inequality. However, I don't agree that increasing minimum wage from $10.85 to $15 is the best approach. I expect it will have a significant impact on both businesses and minimum-wage employees. (Positive for some; negative for those who can no longer find work.) I believe there are better ways to help people, and that minimum wage tends to be chosen because it doesn't have a direct impact on the provincial deficit, so it's a 'free' promise. Increasing minimum wage with inflation is one thing, but a ~40% jump is another. Those are a few things. Many of their other positions I agree with in theory, but there are few details presented so far. (Full platform is yet to be released.) Unfortunately the details that they have put forward, like those above, I find worrisome. That said, I will still likely vote NDP (or possibly Green if my riding doesn't look competitive) since I do expect they will be better for the environment (removal of tolls and blocking of ride-share notwithstanding), and I support most of their goals, even if I don't expect they'll be entirely competent in achieving them.

flukus 9y ago

Is it sensationalism when it's accurately describing something truly sensational?

gambiting 9y ago
If both temperature and CO2 levels set new records every single year, then it's stoping sensational - it becomes expected. I'm still hoping to hear solid solutions that will work on a global level, and so far, there aren't any. As a matter of fact, with the global rise of populism it looks like in some areas, the world is going backwards. Leaked UK government memo says the environmental protections and pollution limits will have to be scaled back for UK to remain competitive after brexit. Trump is actively fighting environment protection. Cutting down of the amazon forest has slowed down in the last 20 years due to huge amount of international pressure, only to accelerate to unprecedented levels now that most of this pressure is gone. I mean sure, Americans and other wealthy nations buying millions of electric cars is going to help somewhat, but I almost think that the world truly needs to get fucked over this, so that people on every level feel the effects or they won't care. Countries will start caring once they start losing coastal cities, corporations will start caring once global warming destroys their profits. I'm almost certain there is no other way.
- flukus 9y ago
  > If both temperature and CO2 levels set new records every single year, then it's stoping sensational - it becomes expected. The increase isn't the sensational part, the acceleration is. That the acceleration is happening despite emissions plateauing is even more sensational, it may be the first indication that we've hit a limit in the earths ability to absorb excess CO2.
- nol13 9y ago
  It's really is depressing seeing the stuff about the great barrier reef etc. Hard to hopeful that we can change course when every indication is that we as a species are not capable of cooperating on such a level. And even if everyone on earth agreed, who's going to enforce such policies? Would probably require a literal New World Order. Have fun getting the conspiritards (who would have been proven right) to go along with that one. Hence, my "duck and cover" post elsewhere in this thread, that I sincerely hope was more joke than not.

anigbrowl 9y ago

We already do this. Go read up on how towns in Florida regularly get flooded by seawater and development continues apace. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032016/ft-lauderdale-climate-change-global-warming-rising-sea-level https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032016/ft-lauderdale-cl...

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Miami Beach has already spent about $400 million to keep the ocean at bay. At some point, it becomes unsustainable.
- flukus 9y ago
  They seem to be trying to prevent the inevitable. I wonder how much it would cost to raise the city by a floor or two and embrace their future island?

vesak 9y ago

>Be constructive, be creative. Ok, solution time. Let's immediately ban everyone who denies that climate change is human made from all positions of power. That implies stripping them of both titles and wealth.

retrogradeorbit 9y ago
I vote we kill you first. You breathe out CO2, right? EDIT: Nice silent edit there. Let me just quote what you just deleted from your comment "Since they won't probably give in voluntarily and since many of them are already in power, this further implies a violent uprising."
- tehwalrus 9y ago
  Breathing is turning carbon that was already in the cycle into CO2. You don't eat coal, or drink crude oil, do you?
- scarmig 9y ago
  "I vote we kill you first" If you're going to troll, at least get your science right. Breathing out CO2 adds zero net CO2 to the atmosphere, because it comes from food you ate, which itself came from CO2 in the atmosphere. The oil and gas that an individual uses to survive, on the other hand, is literally deadly. So you are at the verge of having a point: we could lower CO2 usage by killing people. However, a much more direct and reasonable fix to the problem is to disincentive the use and production of that particular poison. There are a couple ways to do this, but I'd argue a steep carbon tax, with proceeds used for funding sequestration research and programs, is the most humane solution to the monstrous evil of carbon pollution.
  - retrogradeorbit 9y ago
    I'm not trolling. I am feeding back to this person calling for outright violence their own attitude. It's attitudes like vesak's that will lead us to blood filled streets. Hate breeds hate. And eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.

nol13 9y ago

duck and cover.

tianlins 9y ago

The gap between sensationalism and pragmatism is measurement. The graph shows an accelerated growth of CO2 emission, but lacks exact profiling data to deduce reasonable actions.

delegate 9y ago

Well, in order to prepare for something, people first need to understand what they are preparing for and why. TFA has the why..