5 ms·

To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable. > Talking about t

by getonit 16y ago

To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable. > Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends on that opinion - If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. > In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action How is your martian cave? ;) > ...and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever. I don't believe democracy is effective (better than the alternatives we've come up with, but it's still two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch). The only option open to us is spreading awareness, IMHO - government action is the only thing that can make a difference, and governments will only act when they have to. Our current polite pressuring are not nearly enough, apparently.

ErrantX 16y ago
They are not comparable. Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger) If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstanding of social psychology (or, actually, a careful manipulation of it, depending on your point of view, to score political points). You will get people involved and "on the issue". But they will be scared, under-informed and simply polarize for or against. Which has lead to the current inaction posturing and political point winning. This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact. The only option open to us is spreading awareness, On this I agree. However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace. Mostly because it has exactly the opposite affect the the stated aims - you are on the bandwagon of politics for whom this could rumble on nicely for the next thirty years, useful for all manner of things. The correct way to do this is by educating people, by starting businesses to encourage local consumption (veg box services, for example), showing them how to save money and energy (there is a scheme here to have free solar panels, but no one ever new about it), how to pressure local govt. for change (recently we got through some leading local legislation to lay the ground work to encourage all new builds to have solar heating). We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement. So, hence, rubbish blogs like this are in it for politics and scaremongering and are damaging.
- getonit 16y ago
  > Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production. > This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? > Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact. I'm not saying I don't, or that people shouldn't bother, I'm saying I don't expect it to make a difference. Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. > However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the shrieking either, and I agree that it is counter-productive. I do, however, think that the basic message being shrieked is accurate, and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all, let alone if we wait for the idea to bubble through the public and into government. Softly, softly only catchey monkey if the monkey's not already fleeing with a good head start ;) > We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement. I can't see that at all. Again, look to recycling - I don't think it would be a stretch to say that you could choose a house at random, check their rubbish and find that half of what they throw away could be recycled... yet ask anyone to rate the importance of recycling, and they'll be for it.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    > I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime. >The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two! > Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill. You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;) > and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas. We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.

by getonit 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago

They are not comparable. Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger) If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstanding of social psychology (or, actually, a careful manipulation of it, depending on your point of view, to score political points). You will get people involved and "on the issue". But they will be scared, under-informed and simply polarize for or against. Which has lead to the current inaction posturing and political point winning. This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact. The only option open to us is spreading awareness, On this I agree. However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace. Mostly because it has exactly the opposite affect the the stated aims - you are on the bandwagon of politics for whom this could rumble on nicely for the next thirty years, useful for all manner of things. The correct way to do this is by educating people, by starting businesses to encourage local consumption (veg box services, for example), showing them how to save money and energy (there is a scheme here to have free solar panels, but no one ever new about it), how to pressure local govt. for change (recently we got through some leading local legislation to lay the ground work to encourage all new builds to have solar heating). We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement. So, hence, rubbish blogs like this are in it for politics and scaremongering and are damaging.

getonit 16y ago
> Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production. > This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? > Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact. I'm not saying I don't, or that people shouldn't bother, I'm saying I don't expect it to make a difference. Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. > However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the shrieking either, and I agree that it is counter-productive. I do, however, think that the basic message being shrieked is accurate, and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all, let alone if we wait for the idea to bubble through the public and into government. Softly, softly only catchey monkey if the monkey's not already fleeing with a good head start ;) > We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement. I can't see that at all. Again, look to recycling - I don't think it would be a stretch to say that you could choose a house at random, check their rubbish and find that half of what they throw away could be recycled... yet ask anyone to rate the importance of recycling, and they'll be for it.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime. >The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two! > Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill. You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;) > and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas. We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.