4 ms·

I believe the scientists, but I'm not sure this type of 'marketing' is effective and it could possibly even be damaging, or at least a waste of effort (which me

I believe the scientists, but I'm not sure this type of 'marketing' is effective and it could possibly even be damaging, or at least a waste of effort (which means damaging). To someone non-sciency in mindset (which is a great deal of the population), they see this graph, and yet they don't see such hyperbolic, catastrophic, world-ending stuff happening in their day-to-day reality. It's even too cartoonishly hyperbolic to be justified by starvation in Africa. This type of framing of this problem is alarmist, but it can then backfire due to seeming unrealistic and out of touch with reality, making science's reputation even worse. Anyone else agree? I'm not a professional scientist, just a small thought. Perhaps a different approach is needed entirely? We don't need 'cool' alarming and sensationalist marketing that grab newspapers' attention more than anything. It's not really solving the problem, is it?

donw 6y ago
> This type of framing of this problem is alarmist, but it can then backfire due to seeming unrealistic and out of touch with reality, making science's reputation even worse. That damage was done long ago. Read the "other side"[1] of the "climate debate". I am old enough to remember some of those headlines. Even though I look at climate change as an existential threat to humanity, I also readily acknowledge that the people beating that drum have mostly done it to make themselves richer. Nobody wants to pay a carbon tax when they think it's just driven by massive corporate interests, and going into the pocket of a bunch of corrupt politicians. You might laugh, but I think the off-the-grid homesteaders are on the right track. There's a lot of focus on sustainable living in that community -- agriculture, home-building technologies, water, energy, food storage, the lot. That provides fertile ground for small-scale innovation in those spaces. We also need to stop packing people into massive cities. Low-rise buildings are, to my knowledge, much more sustainable, both to build and maintain. A larger number of smaller cities -- bikeable and totally mixed-use -- plus well-supported outlying rural areas, seems like a much better mix than the MegaCityOne approach we've been taking. With improved battery technology, I could see those as being connected with semi-autonomous electric cars, busses and trains as appropriate. Although I worry about how sustainable that is, but biofuels (likely alcohol) are also a carbon-neutral option. I'm hoping that remote work helps drive this, and coupled with tariffs against countries that don't have strong environmental protections, will both open up opportunities for younger people, and help us get our act together from a sustainability perspective. [1] https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/ https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-clima...

donw 6y ago

> This type of framing of this problem is alarmist, but it can then backfire due to seeming unrealistic and out of touch with reality, making science's reputation even worse. That damage was done long ago. Read the "other side"[1] of the "climate debate". I am old enough to remember some of those headlines. Even though I look at climate change as an existential threat to humanity, I also readily acknowledge that the people beating that drum have mostly done it to make themselves richer. Nobody wants to pay a carbon tax when they think it's just driven by massive corporate interests, and going into the pocket of a bunch of corrupt politicians. You might laugh, but I think the off-the-grid homesteaders are on the right track. There's a lot of focus on sustainable living in that community -- agriculture, home-building technologies, water, energy, food storage, the lot. That provides fertile ground for small-scale innovation in those spaces. We also need to stop packing people into massive cities. Low-rise buildings are, to my knowledge, much more sustainable, both to build and maintain. A larger number of smaller cities -- bikeable and totally mixed-use -- plus well-supported outlying rural areas, seems like a much better mix than the MegaCityOne approach we've been taking. With improved battery technology, I could see those as being connected with semi-autonomous electric cars, busses and trains as appropriate. Although I worry about how sustainable that is, but biofuels (likely alcohol) are also a carbon-neutral option. I'm hoping that remote work helps drive this, and coupled with tariffs against countries that don't have strong environmental protections, will both open up opportunities for younger people, and help us get our act together from a sustainability perspective. [1] https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/ https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-clima...