3 ms·

Seems people do not like to cut emissions to help with Climate Change, no surprise there. That to me means no one whats to change their lifestyle. Does not bod

by jmclnx 4y ago

Seems people do not like to cut emissions to help with Climate Change, no surprise there. That to me means no one whats to change their lifestyle. Does not bode well for Climate Change.

madsbuch 4y ago
There are several ways to achieve climate change. Two big sides currently are energy conservatism or energy progressionism; Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear. The hypocrisy comes in when you don't want to nuclear power, don't want to drive less and also want climate change.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Don't forget the hypocrisy of wanting other people to do their bit to combat climate change while you fly in your private jet and use the excuse that one person's contribution is insignificant...
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    That is in an energy conservatist framework. If you fly to a conference to advocate nuclear power and synthetic fuels, it would be congruent.
- comte7092 4y ago
  That’s a bit of a false dichotomy, realistically you need both.
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    Well, if I "realistically need both" it is not a false dichotomy. Then it is just impractical. I also don't present a DI-chotomy, I present two sides of potentially a lot of sides. I also don't present the sides as being mutually exclusive, why it is neither a di-CHOTOMY. Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Currently we seem to take the practical approach of choosing none.
    - comte7092 4y ago
      >Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear. I took this to be an either or statement, apologies if that was not your intention. >Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Overhauling the entire energy system is a huge effort, even more so when the demands grow year after year. Hitting that target in the requisite timeframe is much easier if the energy demands are lessened through conservation.
      - madsbuch 4y ago
        åh, I understand. the latter part of my comment was the simpler "edgy" statement. and yes, I completely agree with your assessment around the overhauling effort.
tijl 4y ago
These are separate issues. It's about the impact of nitrogen on biodiversity in protected habitats. Unlike carbon dioxide, the effects of nitrogen emissions are very local. Which is why this is mainly a problem in small, densely populated countries like the Netherlands and neighbouring Belgium, where areas with a lot of agriculture, also often contain a lot of small but protected nature reserves in between the farms.
BurnGpuBurn 4y ago
It won't take long if the Dutch government gets its way. The Netherlands is the worlds 2nd food producer. So if the govt forces the farmers to quit, which is what they're doing, that will have a huge effect on the world food market, which will result in famines and food shortages. But, dead people are very green and sustainable, so I suspect this is all fine with them.

by jmclnx 4y ago

Seems people do not like to cut emissions to help with Climate Change, no surprise there. That to me means no one whats to change their lifestyle. Does not bode well for Climate Change.

madsbuch 4y ago

There are several ways to achieve climate change. Two big sides currently are energy conservatism or energy progressionism; Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear. The hypocrisy comes in when you don't want to nuclear power, don't want to drive less and also want climate change.

readthenotes1 4y ago
Don't forget the hypocrisy of wanting other people to do their bit to combat climate change while you fly in your private jet and use the excuse that one person's contribution is insignificant...
- madsbuch 4y ago
  That is in an energy conservatist framework. If you fly to a conference to advocate nuclear power and synthetic fuels, it would be congruent.
comte7092 4y ago
That’s a bit of a false dichotomy, realistically you need both.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  Well, if I "realistically need both" it is not a false dichotomy. Then it is just impractical. I also don't present a DI-chotomy, I present two sides of potentially a lot of sides. I also don't present the sides as being mutually exclusive, why it is neither a di-CHOTOMY. Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Currently we seem to take the practical approach of choosing none.
  - comte7092 4y ago
    >Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear. I took this to be an either or statement, apologies if that was not your intention. >Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Overhauling the entire energy system is a huge effort, even more so when the demands grow year after year. Hitting that target in the requisite timeframe is much easier if the energy demands are lessened through conservation.
    - madsbuch 4y ago
      åh, I understand. the latter part of my comment was the simpler "edgy" statement. and yes, I completely agree with your assessment around the overhauling effort.

tijl 4y ago

These are separate issues. It's about the impact of nitrogen on biodiversity in protected habitats. Unlike carbon dioxide, the effects of nitrogen emissions are very local. Which is why this is mainly a problem in small, densely populated countries like the Netherlands and neighbouring Belgium, where areas with a lot of agriculture, also often contain a lot of small but protected nature reserves in between the farms.

BurnGpuBurn 4y ago

It won't take long if the Dutch government gets its way. The Netherlands is the worlds 2nd food producer. So if the govt forces the farmers to quit, which is what they're doing, that will have a huge effect on the world food market, which will result in famines and food shortages. But, dead people are very green and sustainable, so I suspect this is all fine with them.