4 ms·

climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping so

climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping some silly valley hoohaw is going to come up with a silver bullet but if not who cares, got mine. It is about stealing from present and future generations. It is about stealing from the poor, people of color who will be displaced by rising sea levels. It is about stealing from the plants and animals we share this planet with that are currently going through a massive extinction event.

slothtrop 4y ago
Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They want houses, vehicles, electricity, gadgets, delicious and convenient food too. The argument has been made that it's inhumane to demand that developing countries (e.g. in Africa, or BRIC) opt to lower their fossil fuel consumption, restraining themselves from improving their quality of life over time. I agree. We benefited, so should they. If it were possible for them to catch up purely on green tech, they would. Only a fraction of fossil fuel use is actually for generating electricity. The other uses are currently non-abatable, until technology improves. Other uses include blast furnaces for cement and coke, steel-making, creating ammonia, creating plastics. On the electricity front, things are still a mess.
- mnky9800n 4y ago
  a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other living things. Teddy Roosevelt said, “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.” We must conserve and protect this planet. Even if that means doing so from other humans.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    Worth reminding that the IPCC stance is not apocalyptic, in contrast to what you seem to suggest. Rich countries are scarcely getting back around to upscaling nuclear themselves, much less subsidizing it in others. One advantage the developing countries have is they don't have the baggage of existing extensive infrastructure for electricity, and some renewables can be deployed in a more decentralized fashion (i.e. solar). I believe this is currently happening in India in limited fashion. Add to the fact, renewable tech, and mitigating tech like carbon capture, is very much subsidized in the West. The necessary shift from the private sector is going to cost trillions; it's happening already, but not overnight, and the angsty projection against barons and the wealthy class won't make it go any faster. I mean, they needed to hear the message, but there's no reason to believe it isn't loud and clear at this point.
    - mnky9800n 4y ago
      This isn't limited to a couple degrees of temperature. We are killing the planet with the current mass extinction event. We don't have the right to do that. But I agree with you which is why I devote my time to research related to climate mitigation topics such as co2 sequestration.
      - slothtrop 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - Dah00n 4y ago
    >They don't have the right to do it. Well, if they say they have the right then they have the right. They are, after all, as free to govern themselves as we are. If you mean ethics doesn't allow them, sure, but the same ethics doesn't allow us to let them pay for the damage we did and especially since much of their pollution is actually them producing stuff for us. Chinese made pollution creating stuff for Americans should clearly be in the US pollution account, not the Chinese one. It is going in circles, wasting time on talk. The only solution is that those that polluted in the past pay for those that are on the rise now. Either directly or by not pollution in the future. Anything else (unless you invent a Pollution Eater 9000) is the typical talk and zero real action. Step one: Let companies like Apple pay for 100% of their pollution all the way from mineral mining to garbage disposable.
Xeamek 4y ago
Extremely reductive take, to the point of naivety.
- mnky9800n 4y ago
  Extremely reductive response to the point of naivete.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  How is it reductive? Literally speaking, climate change will most impact the people who benefited the least from the burning of fossil fuels. Those are the people who come from poor and hot countries in the global south and near the equator, who have historically burned far less fossil fuels per-capita, but nevertheless will be harmed the most per-capita given their climates are already precarious. Then, when the consequences boil over in a few decades and their countries become too hot to be healthily habitable, they will be banned from migrating to colder, richer countries by those countries' local conservatives, who will lobby government to restrict or ban immigration intake. What a sick and hypocritical situation that will be. Those rich and cold countries' wealth was generated by the fossil fuels that were burned that put those poor people in the global south in that awful predicament to begin with, and now they'll be stuck there to deal with the consequences that they didn't primarily create. It's a world-scale theft of opportunity, wealth and life.

slothtrop 4y ago

Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They want houses, vehicles, electricity, gadgets, delicious and convenient food too. The argument has been made that it's inhumane to demand that developing countries (e.g. in Africa, or BRIC) opt to lower their fossil fuel consumption, restraining themselves from improving their quality of life over time. I agree. We benefited, so should they. If it were possible for them to catch up purely on green tech, they would. Only a fraction of fossil fuel use is actually for generating electricity. The other uses are currently non-abatable, until technology improves. Other uses include blast furnaces for cement and coke, steel-making, creating ammonia, creating plastics. On the electricity front, things are still a mess.

mnky9800n 4y ago
a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other living things. Teddy Roosevelt said, “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.” We must conserve and protect this planet. Even if that means doing so from other humans.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  Worth reminding that the IPCC stance is not apocalyptic, in contrast to what you seem to suggest. Rich countries are scarcely getting back around to upscaling nuclear themselves, much less subsidizing it in others. One advantage the developing countries have is they don't have the baggage of existing extensive infrastructure for electricity, and some renewables can be deployed in a more decentralized fashion (i.e. solar). I believe this is currently happening in India in limited fashion. Add to the fact, renewable tech, and mitigating tech like carbon capture, is very much subsidized in the West. The necessary shift from the private sector is going to cost trillions; it's happening already, but not overnight, and the angsty projection against barons and the wealthy class won't make it go any faster. I mean, they needed to hear the message, but there's no reason to believe it isn't loud and clear at this point.
  - mnky9800n 4y ago
    This isn't limited to a couple degrees of temperature. We are killing the planet with the current mass extinction event. We don't have the right to do that. But I agree with you which is why I devote my time to research related to climate mitigation topics such as co2 sequestration.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      [flagged]
- Dah00n 4y ago
  >They don't have the right to do it. Well, if they say they have the right then they have the right. They are, after all, as free to govern themselves as we are. If you mean ethics doesn't allow them, sure, but the same ethics doesn't allow us to let them pay for the damage we did and especially since much of their pollution is actually them producing stuff for us. Chinese made pollution creating stuff for Americans should clearly be in the US pollution account, not the Chinese one. It is going in circles, wasting time on talk. The only solution is that those that polluted in the past pay for those that are on the rise now. Either directly or by not pollution in the future. Anything else (unless you invent a Pollution Eater 9000) is the typical talk and zero real action. Step one: Let companies like Apple pay for 100% of their pollution all the way from mineral mining to garbage disposable.

Xeamek 4y ago

Extremely reductive take, to the point of naivety.

mnky9800n 4y ago
Extremely reductive response to the point of naivete.
hackerlight 4y ago
How is it reductive? Literally speaking, climate change will most impact the people who benefited the least from the burning of fossil fuels. Those are the people who come from poor and hot countries in the global south and near the equator, who have historically burned far less fossil fuels per-capita, but nevertheless will be harmed the most per-capita given their climates are already precarious. Then, when the consequences boil over in a few decades and their countries become too hot to be healthily habitable, they will be banned from migrating to colder, richer countries by those countries' local conservatives, who will lobby government to restrict or ban immigration intake. What a sick and hypocritical situation that will be. Those rich and cold countries' wealth was generated by the fossil fuels that were burned that put those poor people in the global south in that awful predicament to begin with, and now they'll be stuck there to deal with the consequences that they didn't primarily create. It's a world-scale theft of opportunity, wealth and life.