7 ms·

> "Doing so will require systemic shifts in how we produce food, create energy, manage our oceans and use materials," This is a hard political problem. The own

> "Doing so will require systemic shifts in how we produce food, create energy, manage our oceans and use materials," This is a hard political problem. The owners of the current means to produce meat/oil/etc. want to keep their fortune and to move them to renewable/plant-base/new-tech solutions make them lose that edge and creates real competition. The problem with economy/ecology is that many people are addicted to easy money. We have the tech and knowledge (or we are close in some fields) to replace the problematic industries. The change for the better is a matter of time and pushing politicians and big investors to do the right thing.

mc32 6y ago
“... The owners of the current means to produce meat/oil/etc...” Just as often as big operations contributing to this, it’s the mom or pop or children doing this in a subsistence manner. A contributing factor is encroachment due to local population growth.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Indeed. Madagascar is a slow-motion environmental catastrophe because every family has many children and each of those children eventually needs to slash-and-burn rainforest in order to plant enough rice to sustain themselves. Also a lot of tree-felling to make charcoal, because for whatever reason Malagasy villagers cannot afford e.g. kerosene to cook with. The result is the steady eradication of all those cool lemurs and other rainforest wildlife, but the perpetrators of this destruction are not millionaire industrial fatcats like people often imagine, they are dirt-poor subsistence farmers.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    And without significant investment by those with resources, asking them to preserve the environment is a direct ask for them to go hungry or cold for the sake of the environment. This is an ask that 99.99% or more of the human population will absolutely ignore.
    - zo1 6y ago
      Or how about we invade Madagascar, ship all these poor folk to NYC, and declare the entire region a wildlife reserve?
      - runarberg 6y ago
        Not cool. This kind of imperialist mindset has historically been at the head of some of the most awful actions in human history. Including forced relocations, imposed poverty, sustained resource theft, sustained vandalism and theft of local artifacts, slave labor, and even genocide. If the rich world really cared about the wildlife in Madagascar we would fund green local infrastructure projects so that the local population could enjoy a sustainable lifestyle on their own.
    - Aaronstotle 6y ago
      I guess a solution would be give them supplies so they aren't forced to destroy their own backyard in order to survive.
laurent92 6y ago
We are addicted to high population density, making babies and helping get everyone to what we consider is the minimum level of consumption, which is exactly 2x higher than the Earth can provide sustainably. At one point we’ll have to say “Earth can only feed X billion people if we want to have a medium pressure on our environment”.
- rcpt 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with population density. We'd do better to have people living in dense city centers instead of sprawled out into every corner of the wilderness.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    COVID-19 begs to differ
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      North Dakota has more than 10x the per-capita COVID-19 infection rate of New York City right now, despite having only about 0.03% of the population density.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - eanzenberg 6y ago
        That’s because covid ran through NYC in April leading to massive per capita loss of life.
      - airstrike 6y ago
        You're comparing two cities that got hit by COVID-19 in totally different time periods. No other place in the US had a spike like NYC
    - hyper_reality 6y ago
Aunche 6y ago
It's not just about the capital owners. The actual people chopping down rainforests for palm oil plantations are formerly impoverished farmers. You can stop corporations from buying from them, but you're hurting these poorer communities the most.
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > you're hurting these poorer communities the most. My point is that redistributing wealth in a better way, we would get less opposition to upgrade our production means and people like that poor farmers and others will get a bigger piece of the cake in a more healthy environment and conserving their culture and land. I agree with you, thou. The current mindset is that the super-rich are super-rich and their wealth cannot be touched. So, we are left with limited options on how to manage with the scraps. If we think out of the box and realize that we can redistribute wealth better, there will be still very rich people but also farmers would get a more fair price for their contribution.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    This is key. It's this cultural blind spot where we gloss over the fact that these people are impoverished and so desperate that they would destroy the home around them, partly because we allow a tiny fraction of humanity to amass absurd wealth. Then we double down by making it socially acceptable for them to leverage that wealth into making it untouchable and ever-growing. If we just took this situation as strictly unacceptable, then we are working with a much larger range of options. The idea that big reward == all that innovation needed is pretty sick. It assumes all it takes is innovation to solve literal planet scale problems.
    - nickff 6y ago
      Well, innovation in agriculture has actually reduced the amount of land used for farming in more developed countries while increasing production.
      - 6y ago
julienb_sea 6y ago
The problem is much more complex than people being "addicted to easy money". Wealthy nations have buffer to take on unnecessary expense in addressing their basic needs, like food and shelter. This is dramatically less true in non-wealthy nations. Creating ecological mandates can have actual human impact on food availability and on human standard of living. Not the marginal improvements experienced in developed nations, but life or death quality of life changes to the worlds poorest.
Passthepeas 6y ago
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is... Pastured farming is actually capable of being carbon negative
runarberg 6y ago
Very much indeed. It frustrates me to no end to look back 20 years in the past and see that Al Gore ran on an anti global warming platform in the 2000 presidential election, and lost to an oil baron. While in the 2020 presidential election the democratic candidate hardly mentions the climate disaster while the western parts of the country is literally on fire. Over the years we have tried to solve the climate disaster with some (but very limited) success. Methods including carbon tax, international agreements and green infrastructure. However these efforts have always stopped short of being implemented on a necessary scale (international agreements especially). It is a hard problem only because modern politicians are unwilling to implement any of the necessary policy to tackle it (even though most voters generally want it; green infrastructure especially).
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  >> the western parts of the country is literally on fire. Currently under investigation as arson.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Yes but none of the imminent dangers he warned about came to pass did they? We're still waiting. So, perhaps the right choice was made. 20 years later, you should watch that film again and see the manipulative fear mongering that is in play. And let's not forget that Al is heavily invested in 'green' tech.
  - tpnCC 6y ago
    If U may tell, which specific imminent 'dangers' did not come to pass?
    - feralimal 6y ago
      I'd have to watch the film again (no thanks!) to provide more detail, but it was a tirade of fear. Eg: No snow on Kilimanjaro? but: https://glacierhub.org/2018/04/04/greatest-snowfall-on-kilimanjaro-glaciers-in-years/ https://glacierhub.org/2018/04/04/greatest-snowfall-on-kilim... 20-foot rise in sea levels caused by melting ice caps? shutting down of the ocean conveyor? Hurricanes are getting stronger? Pacific Islands drowning?
partyboat1586 6y ago
But also the owners of the means to produce soybean and grain are happy that they can cut out the middleman and sell their product direct to consumers rather than as animal feed. They will end up with more wealth.

mc32 6y ago

“... The owners of the current means to produce meat/oil/etc...” Just as often as big operations contributing to this, it’s the mom or pop or children doing this in a subsistence manner. A contributing factor is encroachment due to local population growth.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Indeed. Madagascar is a slow-motion environmental catastrophe because every family has many children and each of those children eventually needs to slash-and-burn rainforest in order to plant enough rice to sustain themselves. Also a lot of tree-felling to make charcoal, because for whatever reason Malagasy villagers cannot afford e.g. kerosene to cook with. The result is the steady eradication of all those cool lemurs and other rainforest wildlife, but the perpetrators of this destruction are not millionaire industrial fatcats like people often imagine, they are dirt-poor subsistence farmers.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And without significant investment by those with resources, asking them to preserve the environment is a direct ask for them to go hungry or cold for the sake of the environment. This is an ask that 99.99% or more of the human population will absolutely ignore.
  - zo1 6y ago
    Or how about we invade Madagascar, ship all these poor folk to NYC, and declare the entire region a wildlife reserve?
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Not cool. This kind of imperialist mindset has historically been at the head of some of the most awful actions in human history. Including forced relocations, imposed poverty, sustained resource theft, sustained vandalism and theft of local artifacts, slave labor, and even genocide. If the rich world really cared about the wildlife in Madagascar we would fund green local infrastructure projects so that the local population could enjoy a sustainable lifestyle on their own.
  - Aaronstotle 6y ago
    I guess a solution would be give them supplies so they aren't forced to destroy their own backyard in order to survive.

laurent92 6y ago

We are addicted to high population density, making babies and helping get everyone to what we consider is the minimum level of consumption, which is exactly 2x higher than the Earth can provide sustainably. At one point we’ll have to say “Earth can only feed X billion people if we want to have a medium pressure on our environment”.

rcpt 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with population density. We'd do better to have people living in dense city centers instead of sprawled out into every corner of the wilderness.
- airstrike 6y ago
  COVID-19 begs to differ
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    North Dakota has more than 10x the per-capita COVID-19 infection rate of New York City right now, despite having only about 0.03% of the population density.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - eanzenberg 6y ago
      That’s because covid ran through NYC in April leading to massive per capita loss of life.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      You're comparing two cities that got hit by COVID-19 in totally different time periods. No other place in the US had a spike like NYC
  - hyper_reality 6y ago

Aunche 6y ago

It's not just about the capital owners. The actual people chopping down rainforests for palm oil plantations are formerly impoverished farmers. You can stop corporations from buying from them, but you're hurting these poorer communities the most.

Hokusai 6y ago
> you're hurting these poorer communities the most. My point is that redistributing wealth in a better way, we would get less opposition to upgrade our production means and people like that poor farmers and others will get a bigger piece of the cake in a more healthy environment and conserving their culture and land. I agree with you, thou. The current mindset is that the super-rich are super-rich and their wealth cannot be touched. So, we are left with limited options on how to manage with the scraps. If we think out of the box and realize that we can redistribute wealth better, there will be still very rich people but also farmers would get a more fair price for their contribution.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  This is key. It's this cultural blind spot where we gloss over the fact that these people are impoverished and so desperate that they would destroy the home around them, partly because we allow a tiny fraction of humanity to amass absurd wealth. Then we double down by making it socially acceptable for them to leverage that wealth into making it untouchable and ever-growing. If we just took this situation as strictly unacceptable, then we are working with a much larger range of options. The idea that big reward == all that innovation needed is pretty sick. It assumes all it takes is innovation to solve literal planet scale problems.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Well, innovation in agriculture has actually reduced the amount of land used for farming in more developed countries while increasing production.
    - 6y ago

julienb_sea 6y ago

The problem is much more complex than people being "addicted to easy money". Wealthy nations have buffer to take on unnecessary expense in addressing their basic needs, like food and shelter. This is dramatically less true in non-wealthy nations. Creating ecological mandates can have actual human impact on food availability and on human standard of living. Not the marginal improvements experienced in developed nations, but life or death quality of life changes to the worlds poorest.

Passthepeas 6y ago

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is... Pastured farming is actually capable of being carbon negative

runarberg 6y ago

Very much indeed. It frustrates me to no end to look back 20 years in the past and see that Al Gore ran on an anti global warming platform in the 2000 presidential election, and lost to an oil baron. While in the 2020 presidential election the democratic candidate hardly mentions the climate disaster while the western parts of the country is literally on fire. Over the years we have tried to solve the climate disaster with some (but very limited) success. Methods including carbon tax, international agreements and green infrastructure. However these efforts have always stopped short of being implemented on a necessary scale (international agreements especially). It is a hard problem only because modern politicians are unwilling to implement any of the necessary policy to tackle it (even though most voters generally want it; green infrastructure especially).

eanzenberg 6y ago
>> the western parts of the country is literally on fire. Currently under investigation as arson.
feralimal 6y ago
Yes but none of the imminent dangers he warned about came to pass did they? We're still waiting. So, perhaps the right choice was made. 20 years later, you should watch that film again and see the manipulative fear mongering that is in play. And let's not forget that Al is heavily invested in 'green' tech.
- tpnCC 6y ago
  If U may tell, which specific imminent 'dangers' did not come to pass?
  - feralimal 6y ago
    I'd have to watch the film again (no thanks!) to provide more detail, but it was a tirade of fear. Eg: No snow on Kilimanjaro? but: https://glacierhub.org/2018/04/04/greatest-snowfall-on-kilimanjaro-glaciers-in-years/ https://glacierhub.org/2018/04/04/greatest-snowfall-on-kilim... 20-foot rise in sea levels caused by melting ice caps? shutting down of the ocean conveyor? Hurricanes are getting stronger? Pacific Islands drowning?

partyboat1586 6y ago

But also the owners of the means to produce soybean and grain are happy that they can cut out the middleman and sell their product direct to consumers rather than as animal feed. They will end up with more wealth.