5 ms·

I feel like just when we start to realize we're destroying things with our chemical creations - before things can get fixed the conversation evolves to salving

I feel like just when we start to realize we're destroying things with our chemical creations - before things can get fixed the conversation evolves to salving all of climate change. Can't we just finish stopping the C8/CFC/Pesticide/whatever before we try to stop everything all at once with some nebulous, all-inclusive climate change plan that mostly causes people to only focus on oil use?

GavinMcG 4y ago
No, unfortunately multiple bad things can be happening at once, and FIFO isn’t a great way of dealing with that.
- nfhshy68 4y ago
  Dealing with it with FIFO is better than not dealing with it. Yet we have a few billion people on the earth. I think we can spare a few thinking about other problems.
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
    …the comment was suggesting not dealing with it, at least until earlier-identified problems had been dealt with, so it’s not clear what you’re responding to.
    - nfhshy68 4y ago
      Not every comment reply on the internet is a counter argument to the one before it.
      - GavinMcG 4y ago
        No, of course, but if the comment was a response to the earlier one it may better have been posted there.
mlyle 4y ago
> Can't we just finish stopping the C8/CFC/Pesticide/whatever Most of this comes down to figuring out what's harmful and regulating it. We can't outlaw "chemicals". And, of course, there's the whole cooperation in other jurisdictions problem, which affects the next point... > some nebulous, all-inclusive climate change plan that mostly causes people to only focus on oil use? Look, uh, the climate change thing is bad. Really bad. And avoiding burning stuff is really hard. We can live without PFAS and glyphosate if we decide we really should. Avoiding burning stuff for energy is really hard. The chemical harms are complicated: there are some that are long-standing risks, but most of our concerns do not raise to the level of something that screws up climate, agriculture, etc, for centuries.
- coryrc 4y ago
  We could ban halogens from construction and food industries though with a very short list of known safe exceptions (table salt, hypochlorite). Maybe we give up a tiny bit of convenience -- oh no, I can't leave tomato sauce in my pot overnight without washing, and I have to pay slightly more for longer-lasting fiberglass windows instead of junk vinyl -- but so be it.
bitwize 4y ago
The solution to climate change and all these crises is a vastly reduced human population living in small agrarian communities with preindustrial lifestyles. We keep having these environmental crises because technological civilization was a mistake.
- feanaro 4y ago
  It was only a "mistake" if the word is stripped of its normal meaning since it was inevitable. It may lead to our downfall, but it was then an inevitable downfall. That said, it's not at all obvious that this is the case yet.
- zzo38computer 4y ago
  I do think that the human population is too much, but so is dangerous chemicals in the environment. But, additionally to that is harmfulness to nonhuman environment (animals/plants) as well as human, and also harmfulness earning money at the expense of everything else in this world.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    How do you assess "too much" when it comes to human population?
    - coryrc 4y ago
      Most megafauna being endangered.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        I like that criteria! But it's less affected by total population than it is on the distribution of people.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
canadiantim 4y ago
100% this. The climate change debate takes up wayyyyyyy too much political oxygen and leaves little room for tackling a lot more lower hanging fruit. I actually think society's efforts to fight climate change have been a net negative for the environment, not to mention that many corporations have "green washed" their pollution by feigning being climate change warriors. This narrative needs to end and real progress on environmental pollutants needs to return. Hopefully sanity can prevail.
- exyi 4y ago
  If we spend all the oxygen on climate change and yet we are pretty much falling at tackling it, then I think there is way too little "oxygen" dedicated to not destroying the planet.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  Strange to target society's efforts to fight climate change for consuming the political oxygen, rather than those fighting tooth and nail to keep pumping out CO2. It is the biggest environmental threat facing civilisation, but if only the climate warriors would give up in the face of powerful vested interests and economic intertia, perhaps they'd have time to plant a few wildflowers? /s
- rocqua 4y ago
  Climate change is no longer about the environment, and that is why we see so much movement now. I would argue PFAS isn't about damaging the environment either. It's about human health. Same goes for CFCs. It is getting problematic that 'being green' these days can either be caring about the environment and biodiversity like green-peace. Or it can mean 'doing whatever is needed to stop climate change and keep harmful (to humans) chemicals out of the environment'. Those are actually two very different thought processes with different people who support them. Sharing the term is not working out very well.
epistasis 4y ago
The ecological damage from unchecked climate change is by far the largest amount of damage. I'm not sure why we should give it a pass and only focus on smaller amounts of damage. Because then the conversation will just be dominated on focusing on a smaller issue, with a similar impasse. Just because a bully gets outraged when somebody stands up to them is not a reason to stop standing up to them, and the same folks opposing environmental protection will fight just as hard on other issues.
mindcrime 4y ago
I feel like just when we start to realize we're destroying things with our chemical creations ... FWIW, this was understood quite a long time ago. Consider that the EPA "SuperFund"[1] program began in 1980. And it's not like that was the first time anybody understood that some chemicals have very harmful impacts "in the wild." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund
upsidesinclude 4y ago
No, we have to immediately enact a huge number of measures globally for which we don't know the longterm impact and not worry about these things that make life more convenient if only minimally /every s

GavinMcG 4y ago

No, unfortunately multiple bad things can be happening at once, and FIFO isn’t a great way of dealing with that.

nfhshy68 4y ago
Dealing with it with FIFO is better than not dealing with it. Yet we have a few billion people on the earth. I think we can spare a few thinking about other problems.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  …the comment was suggesting not dealing with it, at least until earlier-identified problems had been dealt with, so it’s not clear what you’re responding to.
  - nfhshy68 4y ago
    Not every comment reply on the internet is a counter argument to the one before it.
    - GavinMcG 4y ago
      No, of course, but if the comment was a response to the earlier one it may better have been posted there.

mlyle 4y ago

> Can't we just finish stopping the C8/CFC/Pesticide/whatever Most of this comes down to figuring out what's harmful and regulating it. We can't outlaw "chemicals". And, of course, there's the whole cooperation in other jurisdictions problem, which affects the next point... > some nebulous, all-inclusive climate change plan that mostly causes people to only focus on oil use? Look, uh, the climate change thing is bad. Really bad. And avoiding burning stuff is really hard. We can live without PFAS and glyphosate if we decide we really should. Avoiding burning stuff for energy is really hard. The chemical harms are complicated: there are some that are long-standing risks, but most of our concerns do not raise to the level of something that screws up climate, agriculture, etc, for centuries.

coryrc 4y ago
We could ban halogens from construction and food industries though with a very short list of known safe exceptions (table salt, hypochlorite). Maybe we give up a tiny bit of convenience -- oh no, I can't leave tomato sauce in my pot overnight without washing, and I have to pay slightly more for longer-lasting fiberglass windows instead of junk vinyl -- but so be it.

bitwize 4y ago

The solution to climate change and all these crises is a vastly reduced human population living in small agrarian communities with preindustrial lifestyles. We keep having these environmental crises because technological civilization was a mistake.

feanaro 4y ago
It was only a "mistake" if the word is stripped of its normal meaning since it was inevitable. It may lead to our downfall, but it was then an inevitable downfall. That said, it's not at all obvious that this is the case yet.
zzo38computer 4y ago
I do think that the human population is too much, but so is dangerous chemicals in the environment. But, additionally to that is harmfulness to nonhuman environment (animals/plants) as well as human, and also harmfulness earning money at the expense of everything else in this world.
- epistasis 4y ago
  How do you assess "too much" when it comes to human population?
  - coryrc 4y ago
    Most megafauna being endangered.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      I like that criteria! But it's less affected by total population than it is on the distribution of people.
zmgsabst 4y ago

canadiantim 4y ago

100% this. The climate change debate takes up wayyyyyyy too much political oxygen and leaves little room for tackling a lot more lower hanging fruit. I actually think society's efforts to fight climate change have been a net negative for the environment, not to mention that many corporations have "green washed" their pollution by feigning being climate change warriors. This narrative needs to end and real progress on environmental pollutants needs to return. Hopefully sanity can prevail.

exyi 4y ago
If we spend all the oxygen on climate change and yet we are pretty much falling at tackling it, then I think there is way too little "oxygen" dedicated to not destroying the planet.
anonymous_sorry 4y ago
Strange to target society's efforts to fight climate change for consuming the political oxygen, rather than those fighting tooth and nail to keep pumping out CO2. It is the biggest environmental threat facing civilisation, but if only the climate warriors would give up in the face of powerful vested interests and economic intertia, perhaps they'd have time to plant a few wildflowers? /s
rocqua 4y ago
Climate change is no longer about the environment, and that is why we see so much movement now. I would argue PFAS isn't about damaging the environment either. It's about human health. Same goes for CFCs. It is getting problematic that 'being green' these days can either be caring about the environment and biodiversity like green-peace. Or it can mean 'doing whatever is needed to stop climate change and keep harmful (to humans) chemicals out of the environment'. Those are actually two very different thought processes with different people who support them. Sharing the term is not working out very well.

epistasis 4y ago

The ecological damage from unchecked climate change is by far the largest amount of damage. I'm not sure why we should give it a pass and only focus on smaller amounts of damage. Because then the conversation will just be dominated on focusing on a smaller issue, with a similar impasse. Just because a bully gets outraged when somebody stands up to them is not a reason to stop standing up to them, and the same folks opposing environmental protection will fight just as hard on other issues.

mindcrime 4y ago

I feel like just when we start to realize we're destroying things with our chemical creations ... FWIW, this was understood quite a long time ago. Consider that the EPA "SuperFund"[1] program began in 1980. And it's not like that was the first time anybody understood that some chemicals have very harmful impacts "in the wild." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund

upsidesinclude 4y ago

No, we have to immediately enact a huge number of measures globally for which we don't know the longterm impact and not worry about these things that make life more convenient if only minimally /every s