6 ms·

It's unfortunate you are being downvoted because you have a lot valid points. > If we are to survive climate change we would have to cull all politicians and d

It's unfortunate you are being downvoted because you have a lot valid points. > If we are to survive climate change we would have to cull all politicians and dirty industry leaders. They have so much power over the world and don;t give a fuck about next generation. I agree this is the inevitable end of this trajectory. Eventually there will be environmental extreme groups that will target fossil fuel leaders. Controversially, ignoring the ethical aspects of this, it would be an incentives equalizer to precipitate real climate regulation. Currently there is no incentive to do so, this dynamics would change with a palpable fear of immediate injury/death.

hedgedoops2 5y ago
Or perhaps we could allow obtaining of some carbon credits through carbon capture / sequestration, and tighten the emissions cap. For 4% of global GDP you could stop/compensate global co2 emissions based on current carbon capture technology's prices per ton of co2 removed. [1] If there were a business case for CCS, the cost would come further down. Currently there is no profit in it. One would need to restrict the allowed methods to safe and scalable ones (like extraction from seawater, not ocean seeding). [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmWpFCjh0Fk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmWpFCjh0Fk for prices and methods + https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock... + simplistic back of envelope calculation (assumes cost scales up linearly)
- einpoklum 5y ago
  Carbon credits are a mechanism by which excessive pollution is supposedly legitimized by other actions. It's a rather nefarious scheme IMHO. We should treat the activities of governments, companies and other organizations in a disaggregated fashion: Pumping out CO_2 and other pollutants into the air should be penalized, and engaging in CO_2-and-methane-sequestering activity (e.g. forestation) should be encouraged, independently of one another.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > Or perhaps we could allow obtaining of some carbon credits through carbon capture / sequestration, Except companies will go for the cheapest possible solution that “counts” for carbon credits, which is probably entirely fraudulent.
  - karlp 5y ago
    So don't have those fraudulent solutions?
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      See off-shore accounting and special tax jurisdictions, for a solid track record on Humans not having fradulent solutions (specially when profit is at stake).
- williamtwild 5y ago
  Carbon credits are a joke. Its basically "so I'm clean over here which means I can be dirty over there! Profit!"
  - whoooooo123 5y ago
    Carbon credits are like paying someone else to not commit adultery so that you can commit adultery guilt-free.
- mnadkvlb 5y ago
  Sorry, i dont think that is a good idea. Its like telling me that its ok if a company shits in my garden and then donates some money to the public cleaning fund. I dont want to have trash in my garden or deal with shit from companies. We are actively trashing this planet for younger generations. To feel good we say, no problem to companies if they donate some money to charities or organizations which do some cleanup. Why allow companies to pollute in first place ? Oh wait, because of lobbies. Never Mind.
dahfizz 5y ago
Politicians in general are no longer accountable to the public. I've long thought that some tarring and feathering is overdue.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  That's only because the public keeps re-electing them and their parties regardless of what they do. It's the voters who are not holding politicians accountable.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    Current days political campaigning is pure emotional control. And its in a runaway effect state. Politicians, backed by professional PR companies who in turn are based on sociology/psychology and years of studies, can pull on emotional strings of people who are already self identify into entrenched positions. Using emotions is clearly easier and more powerful way of getting votes. The only way to win is to play their game, and that costs a lot of money. Its a fools game to try convince anyone with facts, it simply doesn't work. Thats why anti vaccines, flat earth etc are so rampant today. The more you reason with those type of people the more you entrench them.
    - hughrr 5y ago
      I don’t know why you’re being downvoted because that’s exactly what they’re doing. I worked for a company that was being paid to work out how best to manipulate people into certain political outcomes by trying things and measuring results. Of course they didn’t market themselves as that. I quit when I worked out what they were doing.
      - aaron-santos 5y ago
        Interested in hearing more about your story if you're willing to share.
        5y ago
spinny 5y ago
> It's unfortunate you are being downvoted because you have a lot valid points. that tends to happen around here. valid points don't matter, only group think get upvoted
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
  Totally agree. Just that I probably mean another group. Its incredible how common it is that people picture themselves as self-thinking individuals who came to their conclusions by doing their own research ... and then repeat all the standard talking points by some other group.
- Guthur 5y ago
  What valid points, mass murder or some space station from a movie? It was the same old nonsense with no actual solutions.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    - Germany closing down Nuclear meant a greater dependency on Carbon emitting energy sources with no down time (Coal and even more so Gas) - Nord Stream 2 is a project that will further allow Germany to burn more Gas cheaper (more emissions) and become geopoliticaly more dependent on Russian infrastructure - The EU loses geopolitical strength if it is unable to cut ties with Russia as an escalation counter-measure (Because it's biggest net contributor actually needs Russian gas to keep the lights on). - Just like you have had extreme groups and extremist recruitment/propaganda forming around other divisive issues, it is inevitable that some form of environment related extremism will evolve in particular when populations start to become displaced. The obvious target of such groups would be fossil fuel industry leaders and lobbyists.
exporectomy 5y ago
Controversially, ignoring ethical aspects, you could eliminate most violent crime by killing off the poorest people in each country. You could prevent child abuse by killing children. You could encourage any kind of behavior you want by randomly killing people who disobey your demands. Wouldn't life be great if you were an authoritarian dictator with no morals.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  (Reductio ad ridiculum, doesn't allows to have a very meaningful discussion)
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Sure. But neither does inciting murder. Some problems can't be solved just by being angry enough to kill people you hate. The oil industry will continue no matter who you kill or how dangerous it becomes because everyone and their dog will be throwing money at whoever can supply oil.
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      I am too old and cynical to be angry at anybody, my point was that (ignoring ethical matters) the likely spawning of environmental extreme groups would act as an incentive equalizer for the current status quo. There is too big of an asymmetry with the current situation: profits, tax incentives, lobbying, and regulatory capture. This is not something that the average person can address from within the existing judiciary system. At the moment you will need either something that will make carbon emissions unprofitable, or an epiphany from those abusing the status quo, that would lead to de facto climate regulation. Neither of those will happen without some incentive (positive or negative).
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Apart from the fact that this is logical fallacy, all your examples are not civilisation ending scenarios. If we both are on a cliff face and you fell off, and now you are dangling connected by rope to only me. Standard movie trope. Now because of your weight my only options are to cut the rope - you die, or wait and we both die. This is more accurate example we are talking about here, not killing poor people because 'crime'. Also I would like to point out that poor people are not root cause of crime. So you are not tackling actual problem, only applying band-aid solutions. But that's a tangential topic.

hedgedoops2 5y ago

Or perhaps we could allow obtaining of some carbon credits through carbon capture / sequestration, and tighten the emissions cap. For 4% of global GDP you could stop/compensate global co2 emissions based on current carbon capture technology's prices per ton of co2 removed. [1] If there were a business case for CCS, the cost would come further down. Currently there is no profit in it. One would need to restrict the allowed methods to safe and scalable ones (like extraction from seawater, not ocean seeding). [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmWpFCjh0Fk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmWpFCjh0Fk for prices and methods + https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock... + simplistic back of envelope calculation (assumes cost scales up linearly)

einpoklum 5y ago
Carbon credits are a mechanism by which excessive pollution is supposedly legitimized by other actions. It's a rather nefarious scheme IMHO. We should treat the activities of governments, companies and other organizations in a disaggregated fashion: Pumping out CO_2 and other pollutants into the air should be penalized, and engaging in CO_2-and-methane-sequestering activity (e.g. forestation) should be encouraged, independently of one another.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> Or perhaps we could allow obtaining of some carbon credits through carbon capture / sequestration, Except companies will go for the cheapest possible solution that “counts” for carbon credits, which is probably entirely fraudulent.
- karlp 5y ago
  So don't have those fraudulent solutions?
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    See off-shore accounting and special tax jurisdictions, for a solid track record on Humans not having fradulent solutions (specially when profit is at stake).
williamtwild 5y ago
Carbon credits are a joke. Its basically "so I'm clean over here which means I can be dirty over there! Profit!"
- whoooooo123 5y ago
  Carbon credits are like paying someone else to not commit adultery so that you can commit adultery guilt-free.
mnadkvlb 5y ago
Sorry, i dont think that is a good idea. Its like telling me that its ok if a company shits in my garden and then donates some money to the public cleaning fund. I dont want to have trash in my garden or deal with shit from companies. We are actively trashing this planet for younger generations. To feel good we say, no problem to companies if they donate some money to charities or organizations which do some cleanup. Why allow companies to pollute in first place ? Oh wait, because of lobbies. Never Mind.

dahfizz 5y ago

Politicians in general are no longer accountable to the public. I've long thought that some tarring and feathering is overdue.

exporectomy 5y ago
That's only because the public keeps re-electing them and their parties regardless of what they do. It's the voters who are not holding politicians accountable.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Current days political campaigning is pure emotional control. And its in a runaway effect state. Politicians, backed by professional PR companies who in turn are based on sociology/psychology and years of studies, can pull on emotional strings of people who are already self identify into entrenched positions. Using emotions is clearly easier and more powerful way of getting votes. The only way to win is to play their game, and that costs a lot of money. Its a fools game to try convince anyone with facts, it simply doesn't work. Thats why anti vaccines, flat earth etc are so rampant today. The more you reason with those type of people the more you entrench them.
  - hughrr 5y ago
    I don’t know why you’re being downvoted because that’s exactly what they’re doing. I worked for a company that was being paid to work out how best to manipulate people into certain political outcomes by trying things and measuring results. Of course they didn’t market themselves as that. I quit when I worked out what they were doing.
    - aaron-santos 5y ago
      Interested in hearing more about your story if you're willing to share.
      - 5y ago

spinny 5y ago

> It's unfortunate you are being downvoted because you have a lot valid points. that tends to happen around here. valid points don't matter, only group think get upvoted

j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
Totally agree. Just that I probably mean another group. Its incredible how common it is that people picture themselves as self-thinking individuals who came to their conclusions by doing their own research ... and then repeat all the standard talking points by some other group.
Guthur 5y ago
What valid points, mass murder or some space station from a movie? It was the same old nonsense with no actual solutions.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  - Germany closing down Nuclear meant a greater dependency on Carbon emitting energy sources with no down time (Coal and even more so Gas) - Nord Stream 2 is a project that will further allow Germany to burn more Gas cheaper (more emissions) and become geopoliticaly more dependent on Russian infrastructure - The EU loses geopolitical strength if it is unable to cut ties with Russia as an escalation counter-measure (Because it's biggest net contributor actually needs Russian gas to keep the lights on). - Just like you have had extreme groups and extremist recruitment/propaganda forming around other divisive issues, it is inevitable that some form of environment related extremism will evolve in particular when populations start to become displaced. The obvious target of such groups would be fossil fuel industry leaders and lobbyists.

exporectomy 5y ago

Controversially, ignoring ethical aspects, you could eliminate most violent crime by killing off the poorest people in each country. You could prevent child abuse by killing children. You could encourage any kind of behavior you want by randomly killing people who disobey your demands. Wouldn't life be great if you were an authoritarian dictator with no morals.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
(Reductio ad ridiculum, doesn't allows to have a very meaningful discussion)
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Sure. But neither does inciting murder. Some problems can't be solved just by being angry enough to kill people you hate. The oil industry will continue no matter who you kill or how dangerous it becomes because everyone and their dog will be throwing money at whoever can supply oil.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    I am too old and cynical to be angry at anybody, my point was that (ignoring ethical matters) the likely spawning of environmental extreme groups would act as an incentive equalizer for the current status quo. There is too big of an asymmetry with the current situation: profits, tax incentives, lobbying, and regulatory capture. This is not something that the average person can address from within the existing judiciary system. At the moment you will need either something that will make carbon emissions unprofitable, or an epiphany from those abusing the status quo, that would lead to de facto climate regulation. Neither of those will happen without some incentive (positive or negative).
me_me_me 5y ago
Apart from the fact that this is logical fallacy, all your examples are not civilisation ending scenarios. If we both are on a cliff face and you fell off, and now you are dangling connected by rope to only me. Standard movie trope. Now because of your weight my only options are to cut the rope - you die, or wait and we both die. This is more accurate example we are talking about here, not killing poor people because 'crime'. Also I would like to point out that poor people are not root cause of crime. So you are not tackling actual problem, only applying band-aid solutions. But that's a tangential topic.