3 ms·

I’m not sure what centrists are meant to do. It seems like an issue like this requires clear, actionable advice from the science community. Maybe the science co

I’m not sure what centrists are meant to do. It seems like an issue like this requires clear, actionable advice from the science community. Maybe the science community has clear guidance, but what makes its way to me is often contradicted a week later (“we need to recycle!”, “actually recycling doesn’t do much and landfills aren’t that bad!”, “use solar power!”, “actually solar may use as much carbon to create as it saves”). I want to do something, but I have no idea what the answer is.

danaris 7y ago
Except that's not actually what science is doing. 1) "We need to recycle"—We do! It's very important. Unfortunately, recycling a lot of materials is not currently profitable (or profitable enough? I'm a bit unclear on that part), so a depressing amount of stuff we put in the recycling goes several steps along the chain, then gets thrown in the trash anyway—or possibly dumped somewhere illegally. This is not a problem with science, or recycling; it's a problem with uncaring corporations and externalized costs. 2) "Use solar power!"—Do. I've only ever heard the claim that solar uses as much carbon in its construction as it saves over its lifetime from unsourced posts on the Internet (which, yeah, who am I to throw stones? but still...) who clearly had a pre-existing bias against everything that liberals like. Every reputable study I've ever seen linked regarding the total cost of solar puts it much lower than its output for modern panels. There is some concern regarding some of the components—the more unusual metals, for instance—but the main solution to that, to the best of my understanding, is better recycling. (See #1.) Basically, what science, scientists, and good science reporting does is tell you "if you do X, Y will happen with Z% probability". The reason you see all this contradictory advice is that most of it (on both sides) doesn't actually come from scientists—it comes from the media, imperfectly reporting, and in some cases maliciously misreporting, what scientists say...and often what people who aren't actually scientists say, claiming that it is science.
- weberc2 7y ago
  That’s kind of what I was driving at—there is a need for good clear communication regarding what to do about climate change. Maybe you feel like there is a clear channel to you—I don’t, and I’m guessing that’s true for most Americans. Maybe I’m just thick skulled, but it’s hard for me to determine what things are bonafide and what things are environmental fashion (do I need to eat organic? Vegan? Do I need to stop using plastic straws? Etc). I’m guessing that I’m more tuned into science journalism than the average American, and I couldn’t give a ballpark estimate as to the carbon savings various initiatives and lifestyle choices would afford.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The big things need to be system-wide changes through the political system. Individual action isn't going to be enough. Vote for people with serious green policies.
    - danaris 7y ago
      This is largely the filter I use. Banning plastic straws (for instance) does very little to solve the overall problem—the majority of the plastic in the oceans is commercial fishing nets—and does actually have significant negative impacts on some people with particular kinds of disabilities. Using less water, eating vegan, all the individual-level things you can do are not worthless, but they are vastly overshadowed by the harm done by large corporations with an overdeveloped interest in profit and underdeveloped scruples. There are certain individual-level measures that, if our whole society decided to adopt them, would be beneficial, and others that are beneficial (at least long-term) to the individuals who can adopt them, and also have small positive effects for the environment. Rooftop solar is, for many, in the latter category. I believe my parents expect theirs to have fully paid for its installation (3-4 years ago) within the next year or two, and get several more years of useful life out of it, despite living in the US Northeast (winters aren't nearly as detrimental to their effect as is often suggested).

danaris 7y ago

Except that's not actually what science is doing. 1) "We need to recycle"—We do! It's very important. Unfortunately, recycling a lot of materials is not currently profitable (or profitable enough? I'm a bit unclear on that part), so a depressing amount of stuff we put in the recycling goes several steps along the chain, then gets thrown in the trash anyway—or possibly dumped somewhere illegally. This is not a problem with science, or recycling; it's a problem with uncaring corporations and externalized costs. 2) "Use solar power!"—Do. I've only ever heard the claim that solar uses as much carbon in its construction as it saves over its lifetime from unsourced posts on the Internet (which, yeah, who am I to throw stones? but still...) who clearly had a pre-existing bias against everything that liberals like. Every reputable study I've ever seen linked regarding the total cost of solar puts it much lower than its output for modern panels. There is some concern regarding some of the components—the more unusual metals, for instance—but the main solution to that, to the best of my understanding, is better recycling. (See #1.) Basically, what science, scientists, and good science reporting does is tell you "if you do X, Y will happen with Z% probability". The reason you see all this contradictory advice is that most of it (on both sides) doesn't actually come from scientists—it comes from the media, imperfectly reporting, and in some cases maliciously misreporting, what scientists say...and often what people who aren't actually scientists say, claiming that it is science.

weberc2 7y ago
That’s kind of what I was driving at—there is a need for good clear communication regarding what to do about climate change. Maybe you feel like there is a clear channel to you—I don’t, and I’m guessing that’s true for most Americans. Maybe I’m just thick skulled, but it’s hard for me to determine what things are bonafide and what things are environmental fashion (do I need to eat organic? Vegan? Do I need to stop using plastic straws? Etc). I’m guessing that I’m more tuned into science journalism than the average American, and I couldn’t give a ballpark estimate as to the carbon savings various initiatives and lifestyle choices would afford.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The big things need to be system-wide changes through the political system. Individual action isn't going to be enough. Vote for people with serious green policies.
  - danaris 7y ago
    This is largely the filter I use. Banning plastic straws (for instance) does very little to solve the overall problem—the majority of the plastic in the oceans is commercial fishing nets—and does actually have significant negative impacts on some people with particular kinds of disabilities. Using less water, eating vegan, all the individual-level things you can do are not worthless, but they are vastly overshadowed by the harm done by large corporations with an overdeveloped interest in profit and underdeveloped scruples. There are certain individual-level measures that, if our whole society decided to adopt them, would be beneficial, and others that are beneficial (at least long-term) to the individuals who can adopt them, and also have small positive effects for the environment. Rooftop solar is, for many, in the latter category. I believe my parents expect theirs to have fully paid for its installation (3-4 years ago) within the next year or two, and get several more years of useful life out of it, despite living in the US Northeast (winters aren't nearly as detrimental to their effect as is often suggested).