5 ms·

Global warming will be by far the biggest challenge going forward. As long as parties on "the right" don't believe in it, or take it seriously or don't address

Global warming will be by far the biggest challenge going forward. As long as parties on "the right" don't believe in it, or take it seriously or don't address it appropriately there is no way in hell for me to ever consider voting for anything on that spectrum. I can deal with a little over the top wokeness. I cannot deal with the destruction of the planet.

bluescrn 4y ago
But the catastrophising of climate change is also harmful, and results in people proposing 'solutions' that seem likely to bring about an even faster collapse of civilisation. One 2019 UK report (https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf) proposes a timeline that's been circulating on Twitter, involving the closure of all airports and shutting down all international shipping by 2050, while pricing 40% of traffic off the roads and banning beef+lamb. That (along with many more less-drastic but still significant restrictions) is what it would take to reach 'net zero' with current technology. And that was written in 2019, when people were generally a lot more reasonable than they are in the post-Covid world. (Do they even realise what they're proposing by 'no international shipping'... Amongst many other things, that means zero microchips for the UK, let alone complete technology products such as phones, TVs, or EVs) Meanwhile in the real world (here in the UK), we've got a massive cost-of-living crisis, a collapsing healthcare system, a disaster of a property market, and a rising population that we're failing to build infrastructure to cope with. We have a a terribly incompetent government, and an opposition that seems no better. And we're living with the threat of WW3, the tail end of the pandemic, and now a banking crisis too.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > catastrophising of climate change is also harmful What if it is a catastrophe? Should we pretend otherwise? The word 'catastrophize' implies that the speaker is creating the catastrophe. Climate change sure seems like one to me, whether anyone says it or not.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Even a glance at your own link shows you are misinterpreting it. > We currently have no non-emitting freight ships, so there is an urgent need for exploration of means to electrify ship power It seems like you are the one "catastrophising".
roenxi 4y ago
Hypothetical history books could one day read "and in 2023 the Russians nuked New York". Probably in some African script since they'd be talking about the end of civilisation in the northern hemisphere. While I don't want to try and defend every right wing policy, the crowd who think global warming is the biggest challenge we face have been outplayed by the very real disasters and escalations we've been facing since 2020. The well resourced anti-US axis that is developing between Russia and China is a much bigger threat than difficulties adjusting to climate change. Which have generally been fairly minor challenges in the official reporting. All the evidence I see is I'm more likely to die in a fire caused by soldiers than power plants.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > the crowd who think global warming is the biggest challenge we face have been outplayed by the very real disasters and escalations we've been facing since 2020 Your argument is assumptions - that climate change isn't the biggest challenge, that others are bigger. > The well resourced anti-US axis that is developing between Russia and China is a much bigger threat than difficulties adjusting to climate change. Which have generally been fairly minor challenges in the official reporting. What is "official reporting"? China and Russia feature quite largely in the news. It's hard to imagine them getting more coverage.
- _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
  > the crowd who think global warming is the biggest challenge we face have been outplayed by the very real disasters and escalations we've been facing since 2020 That's why it will be very difficult for us to find any common ground. Even though I am very much a free market guy and definitely don't agree with every policy on the left. The right down plays, ignores or ridicules global warming. How one can read the IPCC report and doesn't feel any sense of urgency is beyond me. This shouldn't even be a left or right issue.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    It's because the right benefits in two ways by politicizing it: 1. Attacking the left brings them support 2. Their carbon industry supporters.
realjhol 4y ago
Ok- but what if the planet isn't destroyed after all? What makes you believe we have any control over the climate? What makes you believe that in the sham democracy, your vote makes any difference?
- _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
  > What makes you believe we have any control over the climate? CO2 has two vibrational modes that are IR active. We release carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously bound inside the earth's crust. Humans increased the CO2 concentration from 280ppm to 420ppm (pre-industrial -> today). The science is settled. Whether you believe in it or not: Global warming is happening and humans are causing it. I understand that it is something you don't want to be true (and trust me, I would also love if it turned out to be wrong). But physics doesn't care if you want it to be true or not.
  - realjhol 4y ago
    > The science is settled. Well, we'll see. There are predictions of global devastation within the next decade. > But physics doesn't care if you want it to be true or not. It's not about that. Rather it's about the law of slow-moving disasters. For example, what if I told you there was a train coming down the tracks that is about to flatten you. Would you be scared? What if I told you it was coming at you at 1cm/year. Would you be scared then? This is the law of slow-moving disasters. We tend not to notice them in practice. If the weather changes year to year on the time-scale of decades or centuries, the rate of change is so low that buildings will simply be replaced over time. In extreme cases, populations will migrate. Ancient humans have lived in climates both much warmer, and much cooler than those we currently experience. > trust me, I would also love if it turned out to be wrong I think I trust you. You seem like a stand-up guy, but understand that there is a huge amount of power to be distilled out of this. So there are a great number of people who are heavily incentivised to look the other way if there are any unanswered questions. For a parallel example, see the refusal to acknowledge side effects including mycardiatus from COVID vaccinations.
    - 4y ago
bombcar 4y ago
I would say that the downfall of climate change will be that the parties "on the left" don't believe in it, not really.

bluescrn 4y ago

But the catastrophising of climate change is also harmful, and results in people proposing 'solutions' that seem likely to bring about an even faster collapse of civilisation. One 2019 UK report (https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf) proposes a timeline that's been circulating on Twitter, involving the closure of all airports and shutting down all international shipping by 2050, while pricing 40% of traffic off the roads and banning beef+lamb. That (along with many more less-drastic but still significant restrictions) is what it would take to reach 'net zero' with current technology. And that was written in 2019, when people were generally a lot more reasonable than they are in the post-Covid world. (Do they even realise what they're proposing by 'no international shipping'... Amongst many other things, that means zero microchips for the UK, let alone complete technology products such as phones, TVs, or EVs) Meanwhile in the real world (here in the UK), we've got a massive cost-of-living crisis, a collapsing healthcare system, a disaster of a property market, and a rising population that we're failing to build infrastructure to cope with. We have a a terribly incompetent government, and an opposition that seems no better. And we're living with the threat of WW3, the tail end of the pandemic, and now a banking crisis too.

wolverine876 4y ago
> catastrophising of climate change is also harmful What if it is a catastrophe? Should we pretend otherwise? The word 'catastrophize' implies that the speaker is creating the catastrophe. Climate change sure seems like one to me, whether anyone says it or not.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Even a glance at your own link shows you are misinterpreting it. > We currently have no non-emitting freight ships, so there is an urgent need for exploration of means to electrify ship power It seems like you are the one "catastrophising".

roenxi 4y ago

Hypothetical history books could one day read "and in 2023 the Russians nuked New York". Probably in some African script since they'd be talking about the end of civilisation in the northern hemisphere. While I don't want to try and defend every right wing policy, the crowd who think global warming is the biggest challenge we face have been outplayed by the very real disasters and escalations we've been facing since 2020. The well resourced anti-US axis that is developing between Russia and China is a much bigger threat than difficulties adjusting to climate change. Which have generally been fairly minor challenges in the official reporting. All the evidence I see is I'm more likely to die in a fire caused by soldiers than power plants.

wolverine876 4y ago
> the crowd who think global warming is the biggest challenge we face have been outplayed by the very real disasters and escalations we've been facing since 2020 Your argument is assumptions - that climate change isn't the biggest challenge, that others are bigger. > The well resourced anti-US axis that is developing between Russia and China is a much bigger threat than difficulties adjusting to climate change. Which have generally been fairly minor challenges in the official reporting. What is "official reporting"? China and Russia feature quite largely in the news. It's hard to imagine them getting more coverage.
_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
> the crowd who think global warming is the biggest challenge we face have been outplayed by the very real disasters and escalations we've been facing since 2020 That's why it will be very difficult for us to find any common ground. Even though I am very much a free market guy and definitely don't agree with every policy on the left. The right down plays, ignores or ridicules global warming. How one can read the IPCC report and doesn't feel any sense of urgency is beyond me. This shouldn't even be a left or right issue.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  It's because the right benefits in two ways by politicizing it: 1. Attacking the left brings them support 2. Their carbon industry supporters.

realjhol 4y ago

Ok- but what if the planet isn't destroyed after all? What makes you believe we have any control over the climate? What makes you believe that in the sham democracy, your vote makes any difference?

_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
> What makes you believe we have any control over the climate? CO2 has two vibrational modes that are IR active. We release carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously bound inside the earth's crust. Humans increased the CO2 concentration from 280ppm to 420ppm (pre-industrial -> today). The science is settled. Whether you believe in it or not: Global warming is happening and humans are causing it. I understand that it is something you don't want to be true (and trust me, I would also love if it turned out to be wrong). But physics doesn't care if you want it to be true or not.
- realjhol 4y ago
  > The science is settled. Well, we'll see. There are predictions of global devastation within the next decade. > But physics doesn't care if you want it to be true or not. It's not about that. Rather it's about the law of slow-moving disasters. For example, what if I told you there was a train coming down the tracks that is about to flatten you. Would you be scared? What if I told you it was coming at you at 1cm/year. Would you be scared then? This is the law of slow-moving disasters. We tend not to notice them in practice. If the weather changes year to year on the time-scale of decades or centuries, the rate of change is so low that buildings will simply be replaced over time. In extreme cases, populations will migrate. Ancient humans have lived in climates both much warmer, and much cooler than those we currently experience. > trust me, I would also love if it turned out to be wrong I think I trust you. You seem like a stand-up guy, but understand that there is a huge amount of power to be distilled out of this. So there are a great number of people who are heavily incentivised to look the other way if there are any unanswered questions. For a parallel example, see the refusal to acknowledge side effects including mycardiatus from COVID vaccinations.
  - 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

I would say that the downfall of climate change will be that the parties "on the left" don't believe in it, not really.