5 ms·

> I don't believe there is anything we can do about the impending climate changes. But there is (something we could do). Climate change is caused by pollution

by myshpa 3y ago

> I don't believe there is anything we can do about the impending climate changes. But there is (something we could do). Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption. We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to. If we don't, the nature will force us. As it does with every species in overshoot. > all we can do is learn, prepare, and adapt But we don't know how it will play out. Imagine building a jenga tower. You'll remove a brick from the base and put it on top. The more you build the less stable the structure becomes. Our society is an extremely complex system. We don't know when and how, but we know it will collapse. And nobody can even know how it will look, what to expect, and what to prepare for. Even those bunkers of our tech elites won't do them much good.

revscat 3y ago
We would need to immediately stop the production and sale of all fossil fuels worldwide, at the point of a gun if necessary. The chances of this happening are zero.
- jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg 3y ago
  That would kill billions of people. Your comment is why people don't take climate change seriously.
- myshpa 3y ago
  We should use fossil fuels to transition away from fossil fuels asap. And stop using them for things we don't need.
  - BasedAnon 3y ago
    So that people in poorer countries can use more of them in our place to industrialize and then join everyone else in the gangrape of our environment!
    - danny_codes 3y ago
      But this won't happen. Fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source because of they are already established (economy of scale) and are subsidized heavily. In a world were all major economies have shifted to nuclear power, solar power, and wind power, that will no longer be the case. It will be cheaper for developing countries to use green tech. Also, once the powerful countries have moved off fossil-fuels, we'll hypocritically force poor countries not to use them anyway. Come now, be reasonable.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png Source: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621305/bn-carbon-inequality-2030-051121-en.pdf;jsessionid=D5606408065DFEF96A8D0E4C8CABDA50?sequence=1 https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
      - BasedAnon 3y ago
        What does this have to do with my point, I clearly said they would industrialize
        myshpa 3y ago
        We could go down a lot, and let them come up a bit higher, so that the change would be still climate positive. Or have I misunderstood your comment?
        BasedAnon 3y ago
        We don't have the ability to go down alot without killing alot of people, and if they come up it will not be possible to limit it because game theory
        myshpa 3y ago
        Sure we have. Use less fossil fuels != kill a lot of people :) Not in the western countries, which waste them left and right.
- _y5hn 3y ago
  We could theoretically stop all emissions today, and the warming would continue for decades and centuries from current CO2 in the atmosphere: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...
  - myshpa 3y ago
    The solution: large scale reforestation and rewilding.
bluescrn 3y ago
> Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption. We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to. Yes, we can turn rich countries into poor countries by taking away transport, energy, and protein from the working class, and there's growing support for that approach. But that approach also destroys most of the hope for technological solutions. And even if the richest countries did sacrifice everything, would it be enough, if many other countries continued pursuing growth of economies, consumption, and population?
- myshpa 3y ago
  > we can turn rich countries into poor countries by taking away transport City and economy planning, work from home, basic income, degrowth ... > energy Renewable energy, insulation and heat pumps, not air-conditioners. > protein from the working class That's propaganda, and now you're getting somewhere. We already get 63% of our protein from plants. If we were to extend that to 100%, we could store our entire 1.5C carbon budget through afforesting and rewilding pastures, which would also help restore biodiversity. Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all but symptoms of ecological overshoot. Switching off animal protein would help solve climate change (15-25% impact, co2/methane/n20), deforestation, pollution, soil erosion and overfishing. So it's one of the most impactful things we should do ... helping to solve 5 things out of 7. > But that approach also destroys most of the hope for technological solutions. We don't have any such solutions, that's something that sways the attention from things we already have at our disposal (just wait for this one thing that may or may not come ...). > And even if the richest countries did sacrifice everything Rich countries did/are doing most of the damage, the poorest ones are the ones paying most for it. If everyone would act as we do, we would need several more earths. > if many other countries continued pursuing growth of economies, consumption, and population Should they stay underdeveloped, or die out just so we could still be living like pigs in clover ?
  - BasedAnon 3y ago
    >That's propaganda, and now you're getting somewhere. We already get 63% of our protein from plants. If we were to extend that to 100%, we could store our entire 1.5C carbon budget through afforesting and rewilding pastures, which would also help restore biodiversity. Protein is not created equally. It is not possible to maintain a healthy diet using sustainable low-energy sources of plant protein in place of meat. Meat is not an optional part of our diet. There have been plenty of studies detailing the dietary impact of vegan diets.
BasedAnon 3y ago
>Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption. Which has already happened and is irreversible as far as we know >We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to. No, change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization. >But we don't know how it will play out Yes, but we know what may improve our chances.
- myshpa 3y ago
  Hello again :) You've previously rejected scientific studies, so this time I won't include any, and will keep this as brief as possible. If you'll find that you'd like some, ask and I shall provide. > Which has already happened True. > and is irreversible as far as we know Not true. > change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization A superlative suggestion, sir. With just two minor flaws. One, it's not true. And two, it's not true. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice. > Yes, but we know what may improve our chances. What would that be?

by myshpa 3y ago

revscat 3y ago

We would need to immediately stop the production and sale of all fossil fuels worldwide, at the point of a gun if necessary. The chances of this happening are zero.

jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg 3y ago
That would kill billions of people. Your comment is why people don't take climate change seriously.
myshpa 3y ago
We should use fossil fuels to transition away from fossil fuels asap. And stop using them for things we don't need.
- BasedAnon 3y ago
  So that people in poorer countries can use more of them in our place to industrialize and then join everyone else in the gangrape of our environment!
  - danny_codes 3y ago
    But this won't happen. Fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source because of they are already established (economy of scale) and are subsidized heavily. In a world were all major economies have shifted to nuclear power, solar power, and wind power, that will no longer be the case. It will be cheaper for developing countries to use green tech. Also, once the powerful countries have moved off fossil-fuels, we'll hypocritically force poor countries not to use them anyway. Come now, be reasonable.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png Source: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621305/bn-carbon-inequality-2030-051121-en.pdf;jsessionid=D5606408065DFEF96A8D0E4C8CABDA50?sequence=1 https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
    - BasedAnon 3y ago
      What does this have to do with my point, I clearly said they would industrialize
      - myshpa 3y ago
        We could go down a lot, and let them come up a bit higher, so that the change would be still climate positive. Or have I misunderstood your comment?
        BasedAnon 3y ago
        We don't have the ability to go down alot without killing alot of people, and if they come up it will not be possible to limit it because game theory
        myshpa 3y ago
        Sure we have. Use less fossil fuels != kill a lot of people :) Not in the western countries, which waste them left and right.
_y5hn 3y ago
We could theoretically stop all emissions today, and the warming would continue for decades and centuries from current CO2 in the atmosphere: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...
- myshpa 3y ago
  The solution: large scale reforestation and rewilding.

bluescrn 3y ago

> Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption. We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to. Yes, we can turn rich countries into poor countries by taking away transport, energy, and protein from the working class, and there's growing support for that approach. But that approach also destroys most of the hope for technological solutions. And even if the richest countries did sacrifice everything, would it be enough, if many other countries continued pursuing growth of economies, consumption, and population?

myshpa 3y ago
> we can turn rich countries into poor countries by taking away transport City and economy planning, work from home, basic income, degrowth ... > energy Renewable energy, insulation and heat pumps, not air-conditioners. > protein from the working class That's propaganda, and now you're getting somewhere. We already get 63% of our protein from plants. If we were to extend that to 100%, we could store our entire 1.5C carbon budget through afforesting and rewilding pastures, which would also help restore biodiversity. Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all but symptoms of ecological overshoot. Switching off animal protein would help solve climate change (15-25% impact, co2/methane/n20), deforestation, pollution, soil erosion and overfishing. So it's one of the most impactful things we should do ... helping to solve 5 things out of 7. > But that approach also destroys most of the hope for technological solutions. We don't have any such solutions, that's something that sways the attention from things we already have at our disposal (just wait for this one thing that may or may not come ...). > And even if the richest countries did sacrifice everything Rich countries did/are doing most of the damage, the poorest ones are the ones paying most for it. If everyone would act as we do, we would need several more earths. > if many other countries continued pursuing growth of economies, consumption, and population Should they stay underdeveloped, or die out just so we could still be living like pigs in clover ?
- BasedAnon 3y ago
  >That's propaganda, and now you're getting somewhere. We already get 63% of our protein from plants. If we were to extend that to 100%, we could store our entire 1.5C carbon budget through afforesting and rewilding pastures, which would also help restore biodiversity. Protein is not created equally. It is not possible to maintain a healthy diet using sustainable low-energy sources of plant protein in place of meat. Meat is not an optional part of our diet. There have been plenty of studies detailing the dietary impact of vegan diets.

BasedAnon 3y ago

>Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption. Which has already happened and is irreversible as far as we know >We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to. No, change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization. >But we don't know how it will play out Yes, but we know what may improve our chances.

myshpa 3y ago
Hello again :) You've previously rejected scientific studies, so this time I won't include any, and will keep this as brief as possible. If you'll find that you'd like some, ask and I shall provide. > Which has already happened True. > and is irreversible as far as we know Not true. > change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization A superlative suggestion, sir. With just two minor flaws. One, it's not true. And two, it's not true. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice. > Yes, but we know what may improve our chances. What would that be?