9 ms·

I think op means we should have zero enemies in fixing our environment. If we were truly all on the same page and freaking out, taking meaningful action would b

I think op means we should have zero enemies in fixing our environment. If we were truly all on the same page and freaking out, taking meaningful action would be a lot easier.

ThomPete 8y ago
Freaking out is the opposite of what we need. I am not worried about the consequences being so severe we cant handle them, there are other quite scarier scenarios. Freaking out gives us the opposite of solutions,just a lot of noise and premature solutions such as focusing on inferior solutions such as solar. This is the right way to do it, deal with the problems you see and can deal with.
- ako 8y ago
  The biggest problem is that people don’t see the problem, because they can’t see it in historical context.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    Yep. This is known as "shifting baselines syndrome" https://oceana.org/blog/daniel-pauly-and-george-monbiot-conversation-about-shifting-baselines-syndrome https://oceana.org/blog/daniel-pauly-and-george-monbiot-conv...
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    See what problem? That's the question here. Climate change is not a problem, it is a phenomena which have consequences. Some of them we see today some are 100 years into the future. We don't know what the right solution for the consequences in the future is as we don't even know what the consequences are and we don't even know what the problems are going to be. We can speculate but we can be wrong and so its much better to solve the problems we have today in ways we know how to solve and then invest in R&D to develop better solutions than to chase a future that might or might not be here. Alternatively I fear the current scenario were people have panicked and spend more time arguing on the internet than actually doing anything constructive about the problems right in front of them.
    - ako 8y ago
      That’s my point exactly, people don’t see a problem as they can’t compare our current situation with what it was like in the past. We’ve completely and utterly destroyed nature, seas are empty, air was unbreathsble at some point, all oyster banks completely gone, most wildlife going extinct and people are asking “what problem”? Thank you for proving my point.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        I am assuming you consider yourself part of "people" which means that you are subject to the same problem unless you believe yourself to be enlightened. So the question still is what is the actual problem and how do you know it's correctly defined?
        ako 8y ago
        Wow, this makes me really sad. If you are so unable to see the problem I have no hope we'll ever fix this problem. As I wrote in the top comment, I'm often surprised when reading articles which compare our current state with the past, the amount of life we've destroyed, the amount of pollution we're producing. So yes, subject to the same problem, but open to learning the facts... You sound like the person that gets invited to a party, brings 100s of uninvited friends, completely trashes the house, kills a lot of the other invitees, and then is surprised when somebody thinks it's a problem:" you still have something resembling a roof, you can still sort of live here, what is the problem?"
        ThomPete 8y ago
        So in other words words you considder yourself enlightened and not part of the people. Well that explains a lot. I know the facts, thats why i am not concerned.
jerf 8y ago
"I think op means we should have zero enemies in fixing our environment." You do. Everybody wants clean air, clean water, etc. The Captain-Planet-Villain model of somebody literally cackling about how much pollution they're going to release into the world today is nonsense. The problem is people who see a short-term gain of their own, standing against the environmental problems they cause. They may not even believe the environmental problems exist. Sometimes they're even right; just because someone labeling themselves an "environmentalist" claims some environmental problem exists doesn't mean they are correct. These people are probably as dangerous to the environment as the actual polluters. We don't actually have complete and correct information about the effect of things, and if we did, there's a lot of people who wouldn't want to hear it, on both "sides". But you gotta solve the right problems. Probably a non-trivial component of the environmental movement's semi-effectiveness is how much of the movement wants to fight alongside Captain Planet against essentially non-existent threats, rather than working out how to address the mismatched incentive issue. But I say "semi-effective" because they're far from ineffective, and there are certainly people directly addressing the mismatched incentive issue. For instance, people discussing "carbon taxes" are definitely on a more effective path.
- parasubvert 8y ago
  A major segment of the US populace is supporting policy to remove all polluting regulations , dismantle the EPA, and would scream murder over a Carbon tax the same way “conservatives” in Canada are over Federal plans. They’re not evil overlords cackling, but rather they’re in mass denial over a zero sum scientific equation, and have created a cult around their disbelief that’s as strong as any environmental group. If you understand science, from that sense, they’re definitely acting like tragic villains. I wish it were so easy, that all environmentalists would need to do is admit they’ve overreached sometimes and been alarmist on the timeline etc, and people will see the reason in ideas like carbon taxes. That’s not the experience I see out there. People are treating carbon taxes as the equivalent of communist invasion and an immoral affront to free society, rather than a conservative policy idea. (Similar to the healthcare debate) I suppose there will always be people in the middle that could swing either way, they’re our main hope. But I think it’s not helpful to scold “both sides” as you do above, equating over-eager environmentalists with those that want to accelerate our pollution and use of fossil fuels for short term gain. One is a misdemeanour, the other is quite literally contributing to global destabilization. Global warming in the next 75 years is leading to a wave of refugee immigration the world has never seen before (that a large segment of the populace also currently would reject and let starve). Germany has been poltically destabilized by 2 million Syrians. What happens when 1 billion or more are knocking on Europe and the US’s doors? I only wish I was overstating this for effect.

I think op means we should have zero enemies in fixing our environment. If we were truly all on the same page and freaking out, taking meaningful action would be a lot easier.

ThomPete 8y ago

Freaking out is the opposite of what we need. I am not worried about the consequences being so severe we cant handle them, there are other quite scarier scenarios. Freaking out gives us the opposite of solutions,just a lot of noise and premature solutions such as focusing on inferior solutions such as solar. This is the right way to do it, deal with the problems you see and can deal with.

ako 8y ago
The biggest problem is that people don’t see the problem, because they can’t see it in historical context.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  Yep. This is known as "shifting baselines syndrome" https://oceana.org/blog/daniel-pauly-and-george-monbiot-conversation-about-shifting-baselines-syndrome https://oceana.org/blog/daniel-pauly-and-george-monbiot-conv...
- ThomPete 8y ago
  See what problem? That's the question here. Climate change is not a problem, it is a phenomena which have consequences. Some of them we see today some are 100 years into the future. We don't know what the right solution for the consequences in the future is as we don't even know what the consequences are and we don't even know what the problems are going to be. We can speculate but we can be wrong and so its much better to solve the problems we have today in ways we know how to solve and then invest in R&D to develop better solutions than to chase a future that might or might not be here. Alternatively I fear the current scenario were people have panicked and spend more time arguing on the internet than actually doing anything constructive about the problems right in front of them.
  - ako 8y ago
    That’s my point exactly, people don’t see a problem as they can’t compare our current situation with what it was like in the past. We’ve completely and utterly destroyed nature, seas are empty, air was unbreathsble at some point, all oyster banks completely gone, most wildlife going extinct and people are asking “what problem”? Thank you for proving my point.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am assuming you consider yourself part of "people" which means that you are subject to the same problem unless you believe yourself to be enlightened. So the question still is what is the actual problem and how do you know it's correctly defined?
      - ako 8y ago
        Wow, this makes me really sad. If you are so unable to see the problem I have no hope we'll ever fix this problem. As I wrote in the top comment, I'm often surprised when reading articles which compare our current state with the past, the amount of life we've destroyed, the amount of pollution we're producing. So yes, subject to the same problem, but open to learning the facts... You sound like the person that gets invited to a party, brings 100s of uninvited friends, completely trashes the house, kills a lot of the other invitees, and then is surprised when somebody thinks it's a problem:" you still have something resembling a roof, you can still sort of live here, what is the problem?"
        ThomPete 8y ago
        So in other words words you considder yourself enlightened and not part of the people. Well that explains a lot. I know the facts, thats why i am not concerned.

jerf 8y ago

"I think op means we should have zero enemies in fixing our environment." You do. Everybody wants clean air, clean water, etc. The Captain-Planet-Villain model of somebody literally cackling about how much pollution they're going to release into the world today is nonsense. The problem is people who see a short-term gain of their own, standing against the environmental problems they cause. They may not even believe the environmental problems exist. Sometimes they're even right; just because someone labeling themselves an "environmentalist" claims some environmental problem exists doesn't mean they are correct. These people are probably as dangerous to the environment as the actual polluters. We don't actually have complete and correct information about the effect of things, and if we did, there's a lot of people who wouldn't want to hear it, on both "sides". But you gotta solve the right problems. Probably a non-trivial component of the environmental movement's semi-effectiveness is how much of the movement wants to fight alongside Captain Planet against essentially non-existent threats, rather than working out how to address the mismatched incentive issue. But I say "semi-effective" because they're far from ineffective, and there are certainly people directly addressing the mismatched incentive issue. For instance, people discussing "carbon taxes" are definitely on a more effective path.

parasubvert 8y ago
A major segment of the US populace is supporting policy to remove all polluting regulations , dismantle the EPA, and would scream murder over a Carbon tax the same way “conservatives” in Canada are over Federal plans. They’re not evil overlords cackling, but rather they’re in mass denial over a zero sum scientific equation, and have created a cult around their disbelief that’s as strong as any environmental group. If you understand science, from that sense, they’re definitely acting like tragic villains. I wish it were so easy, that all environmentalists would need to do is admit they’ve overreached sometimes and been alarmist on the timeline etc, and people will see the reason in ideas like carbon taxes. That’s not the experience I see out there. People are treating carbon taxes as the equivalent of communist invasion and an immoral affront to free society, rather than a conservative policy idea. (Similar to the healthcare debate) I suppose there will always be people in the middle that could swing either way, they’re our main hope. But I think it’s not helpful to scold “both sides” as you do above, equating over-eager environmentalists with those that want to accelerate our pollution and use of fossil fuels for short term gain. One is a misdemeanour, the other is quite literally contributing to global destabilization. Global warming in the next 75 years is leading to a wave of refugee immigration the world has never seen before (that a large segment of the populace also currently would reject and let starve). Germany has been poltically destabilized by 2 million Syrians. What happens when 1 billion or more are knocking on Europe and the US’s doors? I only wish I was overstating this for effect.