7 ms·

Doesn't seem like there is any foreseeable future where climate change can be addressed. It's not just the leadership of the u.s, but the citizens themselves re

Doesn't seem like there is any foreseeable future where climate change can be addressed. It's not just the leadership of the u.s, but the citizens themselves reject climate change as a real issue. Hopefully I'm just being pessemsitic.

baq 2y ago
Oh a lot of those citizens care - it’s that they travel to Japan for vacation anyway.
- lukan 2y ago
  There was a famous case of german climate activists, those who glue themself on the road to block the cars to make a statement - they did not showed up to ther appointment in court, because they were enjoying their activism vacation in Bali.
  - Aachen 2y ago
    Fun anecdote but I don't see how a handful of individuals being alleged hypocrites is relevant
    - lukan 2y ago
      Normal people consider climate change to be bad - but still fly far away. But when even the activists fly for vacation - then who will really reduce voluntarily? Apparently not many. I know people who take it seriously, and personally I have not taken a flight in years. Still, the relevant point is individuals are quick to blame others, yet unwilling to change their own behavior.
      - Aachen 2y ago
        - You're generalising "a famous case" (pervious post's wording) to "so even the activists do this". I think most people are aware now that <insert race/religion/...> aren't all criminals after a "famous case", but this obviously also goes for every other group consisting of millions of people - Did these particular individuals get a chance to defend against this allegation or is it just assumed to be the whole truth? It has the ring of a convenient belief¹ that you can bring up whenever someone mentions that e.g. much less frequent flying and rarely eating beef/lamb are some large-impact things people could do. Was it actually them? Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train? Did they do, or buy, something that compensates the emissions (something one can reasonably believe to be effective, not the airline's 2€-on-checkout option)? And even if, I'm also not going to stop flying entirely when literally everybody else here does it. I'm not the pope, even if I advocate for making things better (not trying to go for perfect, the enemy of good). Why should I sacrifice my life? I just came back from a train trip across the continent that I could also have flown or driven in individual transport (for free even, as the car I co-use has a flat fee fuel subscription). I try to do the right thing where reasonably possible, as it was in this case, but I'm not sure we should expect everyone who speaks of climate change to only ever do the right thing, especially when things like direct air capture can plausibly undo your emissions. It's cheaper not to fly than to fly and pay Climeworks to undo it, but that is an option, as is reducing the amount of flying. Both are good, both would allow you to further the anecdotal evidence that climate activists fly ¹ By which I mean a belief to justify something one wants for other reasons. The example that comes to mind is the "protip" that leaving the heater on a constant temperature is more efficient than stopping to burn fuel when you're not even home, which means you come home to a warm and cozy place so yeah sure one loves to hear/believe it and nobody sanity checks the values of how much more efficient your heater actually is when burning at a low rate as compared to the fuel saved while you're not home for 8 working hours + commute time
        lukan 2y ago
        I think they were given their interviews later, but I was not too interested. They were in Bali at a tourist location. Not in the Sahel doing developement work. Also where did I say all activists are to blame? I said I know people who don't fly at all and me who only considers flying in very rare circumstances. But true, I am not an activist. "Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train?" I don't think much of activists, who block other peoples daily commute with a standard car - but fly themself around the world for vacation. It does not matter how often they do it. Judging from activists, I suppose their reasoning is something like, they did so much activism blocking normal roads, that they deserve their vacation. Well, I don't believe they help the cause, rather the opposite. (And they were from germany btw. In europe you can easily go to lots of places by bus or train) I don't blame you, if you are flying. But you don't block other people means of (more efficient) transport I suppose, while thinking you are righteous? That is my problem. This kind of activism. All it does is making people angry at activists and the cause.
        Aachen 2y ago
        As for the last paragraph, you're right to assume I haven't blocked other people's transport. I'm not yet sure whether that's effective, I don't really see the logic but it's how protesting works and that has afaik historically been important for changing bad laws so.... is it good or bad? I don't know but so far it seems obnoxious whenever I'm affected while I'm on their side
        lukan 2y ago
        "I don't really see the logic but it's how protesting works" No, protesting works, when it is against something you want to stop. But if I want to convince others to stop something, obviously I cannot continue to do the same or a worse thing. I don't know a single protest that worked this way. But protesting against chopping down a forest to do more coal mining, did worked recently in germany. That was a good and effective protest (mostly). But blocking roads? It just hurts normal people largely with no alternative of transport. I doubt a single person was convinced to help there. Rather the opposite.
- autoexec 2y ago
  Let's not pretend that the family vacation is the real driver to climate change. Most Americans aren't jet-setting on a regular basis.
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    Air travel is only 11% of all transport emissions, so it's not all that significant, especially given that it's often the only real option for covering vast distances. But Americans do drive everywhere, and that's 48% of all transport emissions (just cars, not even counting trucks, with that it's more like 73% for all road transport). So yeah. Nobody gives a fuck.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      X is only Y% of emissions is the NIMBY of climate change. You can slice every single emissions source as "only Y% of emissions, you should worry about the others first", and then nothing is done on any of them. No, you tackle everything above 0.5%. Otherwise, the SUV's say blame the private jets, the private jets say blame the SUV's, the public transport blames the EV's, America blames China, China blames America's past, the consumers blame the producers and the producers blame the consumers, etc.
      - moffkalast 2y ago
        Well sure, but not all fields have zero emissions solutions available. Solutions need to be found, but they might not be there in time. General power production is currently 25% of total, we can fix that with hydro, wind, solar, nuclear. Plans are clear, they need to be put into action. Agriculture is another 25% which will be a candidate for reduction once there's something more energy dense than diesel available to run every tractor and combine harvester in the world (currently looking like never). EV tractors are in the golf cart stage of usefulness. Not something we can realistically reduce by much if you want to continue eating food. Home emissions are only 6-8%, but we can easily drive that to zero with induction cookers and ban of fuel oil heating, subsidizing heat pumps and district heating. Of the 14% that is transport, cars can go EV and vans/trucks for city last mile delivery. Semi trucks should be replaced as much as possible by electric trains (good luck building that much rail though). On the other hand planes can't even ditch leaded fuel for piston engines yet, they're so far behind. Electric planes are a 1 hour flight time joke, hydrogen use is nonexistent. Sea shipping can go battery electric as well although it would be incredibly expensive. How much we can cut down in the 20% that's emitted by industry is a good question that I have little insight into. I presume some chemical processes inherently release CO2, but there is a lot that can likely be done.
- spike021 2y ago
  Bizarre choice of example
zo1 2y ago
No, I 100% blame politicians and the media. If this climate thing is such an issue as the "doomsayers" say it is, then we should be outright and immediately banning/dismantling and destroying infrastructure that causes it. But instead, we faff about with "carbon credits" and "media campaigns", and cause all sorts of divisive misinformation and "cover" for the worst offenders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Annual_CO2_emissions_by_region%2C_2022.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Annual_C... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Annual_CO2_emissions_per_country%2C_2022.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Annual_C...
- tuna74 2y ago
  In democratic societies we get the politicians we vote for.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    Four wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner
    - kibwen 2y ago
      Are you presuming the existence of some hypothetical political system that would prevent the wolves from eating the sheep?
    - timeon 2y ago
      Can you be more specific?
  - Aachen 2y ago
    By people that aren't aware of the problem or their ability to collectively change it, sadly. Everyone I know wants to do right by them and theirs; climate change having a meaningful impact on those doesn't seem to be on most voter's radar somehow I do kinda feel like a responsible leader, that should be elected anyway for reasons other than intended climate policy, should also have the guts to put a topic on the table that means scary change for a massive decrease in worldsuck on a timescale we're comfortable estimating the broad effects for
thrance 2y ago
Climate change denialism is not a natural state of mind, it was deliberately manufactured by people who stand to keep the status quo[1]. [1]https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=E01 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=E01
- Spivak 2y ago
  I don't agree with this take but I don't think the quiet part, that we should strive for the highest quality life right now and let nature sort out the consequences (if any) later, is necessarily invalid. And I think why we're having such a hard time with "climate denialism" is because we're not really presenting arguments against the underlying argument.
  - deprecative 2y ago
    We've known human caused climate change has been a thing for over a hundred years. You can disagree with a take but it's a fact that this has happened.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Oh I know, but let's say you didn't want to do anything about climate change and you knew that the kind of people who do: * Value moral superiority and "being right" over results. * Broadly think that people who categorically disagree with them are stupid and just need to be educated about the truth. * Believe that the mere existence of climate change implies that we have to do everything they say to combat it. * As a group are largely incapable of knowing when they're being put on and baited. So say hypothetically you "deny climate change." But of course you don't outright deny it, you say that there's no evidence. The discussion shifts away from what the proper response to climate change is to whether it even exists. In public discussions you can dismiss any argument with "well it doesn't even exist." They will then proceed to spinlock boiling the oceans with the energy expenditure trying to prove it exists— "surely this next piece of evidence will be undeniable and I'll have them cornered!" But that couldn't possibly work, right?
- 2y ago

baq 2y ago

Oh a lot of those citizens care - it’s that they travel to Japan for vacation anyway.

lukan 2y ago
There was a famous case of german climate activists, those who glue themself on the road to block the cars to make a statement - they did not showed up to ther appointment in court, because they were enjoying their activism vacation in Bali.
- Aachen 2y ago
  Fun anecdote but I don't see how a handful of individuals being alleged hypocrites is relevant
  - lukan 2y ago
    Normal people consider climate change to be bad - but still fly far away. But when even the activists fly for vacation - then who will really reduce voluntarily? Apparently not many. I know people who take it seriously, and personally I have not taken a flight in years. Still, the relevant point is individuals are quick to blame others, yet unwilling to change their own behavior.
    - Aachen 2y ago
      - You're generalising "a famous case" (pervious post's wording) to "so even the activists do this". I think most people are aware now that <insert race/religion/...> aren't all criminals after a "famous case", but this obviously also goes for every other group consisting of millions of people - Did these particular individuals get a chance to defend against this allegation or is it just assumed to be the whole truth? It has the ring of a convenient belief¹ that you can bring up whenever someone mentions that e.g. much less frequent flying and rarely eating beef/lamb are some large-impact things people could do. Was it actually them? Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train? Did they do, or buy, something that compensates the emissions (something one can reasonably believe to be effective, not the airline's 2€-on-checkout option)? And even if, I'm also not going to stop flying entirely when literally everybody else here does it. I'm not the pope, even if I advocate for making things better (not trying to go for perfect, the enemy of good). Why should I sacrifice my life? I just came back from a train trip across the continent that I could also have flown or driven in individual transport (for free even, as the car I co-use has a flat fee fuel subscription). I try to do the right thing where reasonably possible, as it was in this case, but I'm not sure we should expect everyone who speaks of climate change to only ever do the right thing, especially when things like direct air capture can plausibly undo your emissions. It's cheaper not to fly than to fly and pay Climeworks to undo it, but that is an option, as is reducing the amount of flying. Both are good, both would allow you to further the anecdotal evidence that climate activists fly ¹ By which I mean a belief to justify something one wants for other reasons. The example that comes to mind is the "protip" that leaving the heater on a constant temperature is more efficient than stopping to burn fuel when you're not even home, which means you come home to a warm and cozy place so yeah sure one loves to hear/believe it and nobody sanity checks the values of how much more efficient your heater actually is when burning at a low rate as compared to the fuel saved while you're not home for 8 working hours + commute time
      - lukan 2y ago
        I think they were given their interviews later, but I was not too interested. They were in Bali at a tourist location. Not in the Sahel doing developement work. Also where did I say all activists are to blame? I said I know people who don't fly at all and me who only considers flying in very rare circumstances. But true, I am not an activist. "Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train?" I don't think much of activists, who block other peoples daily commute with a standard car - but fly themself around the world for vacation. It does not matter how often they do it. Judging from activists, I suppose their reasoning is something like, they did so much activism blocking normal roads, that they deserve their vacation. Well, I don't believe they help the cause, rather the opposite. (And they were from germany btw. In europe you can easily go to lots of places by bus or train) I don't blame you, if you are flying. But you don't block other people means of (more efficient) transport I suppose, while thinking you are righteous? That is my problem. This kind of activism. All it does is making people angry at activists and the cause.
        Aachen 2y ago
        As for the last paragraph, you're right to assume I haven't blocked other people's transport. I'm not yet sure whether that's effective, I don't really see the logic but it's how protesting works and that has afaik historically been important for changing bad laws so.... is it good or bad? I don't know but so far it seems obnoxious whenever I'm affected while I'm on their side
        lukan 2y ago
        "I don't really see the logic but it's how protesting works" No, protesting works, when it is against something you want to stop. But if I want to convince others to stop something, obviously I cannot continue to do the same or a worse thing. I don't know a single protest that worked this way. But protesting against chopping down a forest to do more coal mining, did worked recently in germany. That was a good and effective protest (mostly). But blocking roads? It just hurts normal people largely with no alternative of transport. I doubt a single person was convinced to help there. Rather the opposite.
autoexec 2y ago
Let's not pretend that the family vacation is the real driver to climate change. Most Americans aren't jet-setting on a regular basis.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Air travel is only 11% of all transport emissions, so it's not all that significant, especially given that it's often the only real option for covering vast distances. But Americans do drive everywhere, and that's 48% of all transport emissions (just cars, not even counting trucks, with that it's more like 73% for all road transport). So yeah. Nobody gives a fuck.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    X is only Y% of emissions is the NIMBY of climate change. You can slice every single emissions source as "only Y% of emissions, you should worry about the others first", and then nothing is done on any of them. No, you tackle everything above 0.5%. Otherwise, the SUV's say blame the private jets, the private jets say blame the SUV's, the public transport blames the EV's, America blames China, China blames America's past, the consumers blame the producers and the producers blame the consumers, etc.
    - moffkalast 2y ago
      Well sure, but not all fields have zero emissions solutions available. Solutions need to be found, but they might not be there in time. General power production is currently 25% of total, we can fix that with hydro, wind, solar, nuclear. Plans are clear, they need to be put into action. Agriculture is another 25% which will be a candidate for reduction once there's something more energy dense than diesel available to run every tractor and combine harvester in the world (currently looking like never). EV tractors are in the golf cart stage of usefulness. Not something we can realistically reduce by much if you want to continue eating food. Home emissions are only 6-8%, but we can easily drive that to zero with induction cookers and ban of fuel oil heating, subsidizing heat pumps and district heating. Of the 14% that is transport, cars can go EV and vans/trucks for city last mile delivery. Semi trucks should be replaced as much as possible by electric trains (good luck building that much rail though). On the other hand planes can't even ditch leaded fuel for piston engines yet, they're so far behind. Electric planes are a 1 hour flight time joke, hydrogen use is nonexistent. Sea shipping can go battery electric as well although it would be incredibly expensive. How much we can cut down in the 20% that's emitted by industry is a good question that I have little insight into. I presume some chemical processes inherently release CO2, but there is a lot that can likely be done.
spike021 2y ago
Bizarre choice of example

zo1 2y ago

No, I 100% blame politicians and the media. If this climate thing is such an issue as the "doomsayers" say it is, then we should be outright and immediately banning/dismantling and destroying infrastructure that causes it. But instead, we faff about with "carbon credits" and "media campaigns", and cause all sorts of divisive misinformation and "cover" for the worst offenders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Annual_CO2_emissions_by_region%2C_2022.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Annual_C... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Annual_CO2_emissions_per_country%2C_2022.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Annual_C...

tuna74 2y ago
In democratic societies we get the politicians we vote for.
- sethammons 2y ago
  Four wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Are you presuming the existence of some hypothetical political system that would prevent the wolves from eating the sheep?
  - timeon 2y ago
    Can you be more specific?
- Aachen 2y ago
  By people that aren't aware of the problem or their ability to collectively change it, sadly. Everyone I know wants to do right by them and theirs; climate change having a meaningful impact on those doesn't seem to be on most voter's radar somehow I do kinda feel like a responsible leader, that should be elected anyway for reasons other than intended climate policy, should also have the guts to put a topic on the table that means scary change for a massive decrease in worldsuck on a timescale we're comfortable estimating the broad effects for

thrance 2y ago

Climate change denialism is not a natural state of mind, it was deliberately manufactured by people who stand to keep the status quo[1]. [1]https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=E01 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=E01

Spivak 2y ago
I don't agree with this take but I don't think the quiet part, that we should strive for the highest quality life right now and let nature sort out the consequences (if any) later, is necessarily invalid. And I think why we're having such a hard time with "climate denialism" is because we're not really presenting arguments against the underlying argument.
- deprecative 2y ago
  We've known human caused climate change has been a thing for over a hundred years. You can disagree with a take but it's a fact that this has happened.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Oh I know, but let's say you didn't want to do anything about climate change and you knew that the kind of people who do: * Value moral superiority and "being right" over results. * Broadly think that people who categorically disagree with them are stupid and just need to be educated about the truth. * Believe that the mere existence of climate change implies that we have to do everything they say to combat it. * As a group are largely incapable of knowing when they're being put on and baited. So say hypothetically you "deny climate change." But of course you don't outright deny it, you say that there's no evidence. The discussion shifts away from what the proper response to climate change is to whether it even exists. In public discussions you can dismiss any argument with "well it doesn't even exist." They will then proceed to spinlock boiling the oceans with the energy expenditure trying to prove it exists— "surely this next piece of evidence will be undeniable and I'll have them cornered!" But that couldn't possibly work, right?
2y ago