3 ms·

I don't see any substantiated arguments on why this is 'madness' and in what sense these are 'poisons'. And on how to implement your 'solution'.

myshpa 4y ago
Have you read the letter? It's not a call for implementing SRM, but for studying its effects (so call for funding the research). Even they admit that: > While we fully support research into SRM approaches, this does not mean we support the use of SRM. > SRM does not address the cause of climate change, nor all of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, it likely will never be an appropriate candidate for an open market system of credits and independent actors Madness is focusing on methods of mitigation of one particular aspect of the "climate change". I put this in the same bucket like the shading of the sun from the space (few weeks/moths ago?). Climate change is in fact a wrong term. We should focus on all aspects of anthropocene, especially on biodiversity and restoration of ecosystems. With functioning ecosystems and with us not flooding the earth and atmosphere with poisons (stuff that does not belong in such big quantities, like co2, methane, pfoas, plastics, pesticides/herbidices, fertilizers, etc. etc.) the nature will return to the optimum state. Let's diminish ourselves and let the nature repair itself. Hoping that some miraculous, non-existent technology will solve our problems while ignoring obvious and easy solutions (stop doing the bad stuff) exist is madness. Promoting such efforts makes the population complacement (no need to do anything personally, it's being worked on, let's consume more). Propaganda and greed. Same old, same old.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > Let's diminish ourselves... > Hoping that some miraculous, non-existent technology will solve our problems while ignoring obvious and easy solutions (stop doing the bad stuff) You first.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    I'm aware, and fully agree. “Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      I notice that you still seem to be using electricity and a computer. I'll bet you're still eating food that was transported by internal combustion engines, too.
      - myshpa 4y ago
        > I notice that you still seem to be using electricity and a computer. Electricity is (should be, will be) practically free [0]. Unless somebody is living like a caveman they should not be advocating for responsible stewardship of earth resources? > I'll bet you're still eating food that was transported by internal combustion engines You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local [1] [2] [3] [0] https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst... - 254x254 km grid of solar panels is enough for the whole world 1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local - transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. [2] https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imperative-survival-climate-expert/ https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imper... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets - if the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        What was that about "miraculous, non-existent technology"?
        4y ago

myshpa 4y ago

Have you read the letter? It's not a call for implementing SRM, but for studying its effects (so call for funding the research). Even they admit that: > While we fully support research into SRM approaches, this does not mean we support the use of SRM. > SRM does not address the cause of climate change, nor all of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, it likely will never be an appropriate candidate for an open market system of credits and independent actors Madness is focusing on methods of mitigation of one particular aspect of the "climate change". I put this in the same bucket like the shading of the sun from the space (few weeks/moths ago?). Climate change is in fact a wrong term. We should focus on all aspects of anthropocene, especially on biodiversity and restoration of ecosystems. With functioning ecosystems and with us not flooding the earth and atmosphere with poisons (stuff that does not belong in such big quantities, like co2, methane, pfoas, plastics, pesticides/herbidices, fertilizers, etc. etc.) the nature will return to the optimum state. Let's diminish ourselves and let the nature repair itself. Hoping that some miraculous, non-existent technology will solve our problems while ignoring obvious and easy solutions (stop doing the bad stuff) exist is madness. Promoting such efforts makes the population complacement (no need to do anything personally, it's being worked on, let's consume more). Propaganda and greed. Same old, same old.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
> Let's diminish ourselves... > Hoping that some miraculous, non-existent technology will solve our problems while ignoring obvious and easy solutions (stop doing the bad stuff) You first.
- myshpa 4y ago
  I'm aware, and fully agree. “Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    I notice that you still seem to be using electricity and a computer. I'll bet you're still eating food that was transported by internal combustion engines, too.
    - myshpa 4y ago
      > I notice that you still seem to be using electricity and a computer. Electricity is (should be, will be) practically free [0]. Unless somebody is living like a caveman they should not be advocating for responsible stewardship of earth resources? > I'll bet you're still eating food that was transported by internal combustion engines You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local [1] [2] [3] [0] https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst... - 254x254 km grid of solar panels is enough for the whole world 1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local - transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. [2] https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imperative-survival-climate-expert/ https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imper... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets - if the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
      - Turing_Machine 4y ago
        What was that about "miraculous, non-existent technology"?
        4y ago