This is fine, we just need to switch from plastic bugs and make caps attached to bottles and everything will be alright! Together we can fight at least 1% of the carbon emissions from top 100 corporations in the world :)
I really think this narrative is counterproductive. It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun. They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.
No corporation is going to choose more environmentally friendly practices out of the goodness of their own hearts unless those practices are cheaper. And given that that is very rarely the case, we have to look at things like carbon taxes to actually price in the externalities of climate damage. But that is going to increase the prices of some goods, and that requires a level of political will that has proven very difficult to come by. “Just make corporations pay” to fix things, whether that’s a carbon tax or taxes on oil company executive pay or dividends or whatever else the proposal may be is always going to mean “increase prices to compensate for climate-related externalities”.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that all costs of addressing climate change must directly fall on consumers; government subsidies to reduce the costs of environmentally sustainable practices can also be extremely beneficial. But ultimately, this is a problem that we’ve all created, and we’re all going to have to be part of solving it. Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.
Blaming the public over corporations is the #1 reason why we are in this mess in the first place. For decades, the narrative has been “it’s your fault and you need to change your habits”. It is a pointless and useless narrative because nobody is going to actively change anything like that until they are forced to. Even when we make moderate, easy efforts to do stuff like recycling, the recycling companies bitch and moan about how they can’t ship this shit off to China to let them do the work, and then throw away most of it, anyway. We PAY recycling companies to recycle this shit and they can’t be bothered to figure out how to recycle it. We PAY THEM to take away materials to use in new products, not the other way around.
In every aspect of people’s lives, you will find that corporations use up 90% of the resources that the general public use because corporations deal in economies-of-scale far bigger than anything a person or even a country can do. Corporations have been pushing the “blame the public” narrative to shift focus away from the decades of abuse they will continue to inflict on the planet. Corporation shit all over everything, and they will continue to do so in the name of profit. That is exactly what they are designed to do.
It takes governmental effort and regulations against the corporations to stop this sort of thing. They do it for clean water, and CFCs, and automotive design, and architecture, and many many other things. Why? Because a minority group of people who are struggling to make a living is never going to have enough power and clout as a large corporation or a government.
It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun.
I think we can agree on that corporations are aimed at cheapest way to produce most popular goods at the biggest scale they can achieve for, in the end, produce the biggest possible profit. Thats what corporations are made for: money.
In the end, rich guy gets a yacht, bunker for apocalypse and private residence with AC, private kitchen stuff and anything they want so he will be fine even if its 60C outside. If it will get unbearable, they’ll move to something like Norway and will be fine.
At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people who live in hot countries will die and millions will be climate refugees.
All that, because producing iphone with coal electricity (simplification, albeit I feel like its close to truth) is 10$ cheaper.
Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.
Swapping to paper bags will not help either. There are only two options to solve the issue:
- Government forces corpo to stop wasting our planet (because we don’t have a spare one)
- People get torches
1 is impossible because gov will never cut the feeding hand and 2 is just a matter of time until we will get couple hundred millions migrants from Aftica, India, Pakistan etc.
1 is still possible. But, we’re at a tipping point between ending up in some Cyberpunk corporate-ran dystopia and one where the general public actually has the upper-hand and can fend off governmental corruption.
Choose wisely. Vote every year, twice a year.
but the thing about voting is that basically every politician is either:
- In the pocket of one or more corporations
- Literally part of a corporation (or outright owns one)
- A politician at who doesn’t have as much power as the former two or is in the pocket of one of them
so we could vote for John StopClimateChange, and then find out that every single thing that Mr. StopClimateChange said about his crusade to stopping climate change was not at all true or was so utterly miniscule in the long run as to be meaningless
then what?
This is a defeatist and authoritarian position that the rich and powerful want you to have. They want to feel like you can’t win, so that they vote behind you while you sit at home. Until eventually, they just dismantle democracy altogether and we go back to fiefdoms.
There is clearly one party that is more in line with the goals of fighting climate change than the other. Vote for that group. Vote for that group twice a year.
this is a problem that we’ve all created
You mean this is a problem that the boomers and gen x created. THEY are the generations that controlled the corporations whose only concern was profit. THEY are the generations that pushed consumerism with no regard to the natural world. THEY are the generations that elected the politicians that allowed this all to happen. So here come the millennials and zoomers to clean up their mess, just like everything else they fucked up for the rest of us.
What an awkward speech.
Sure people spending all day on TikTok and playing with cryptocurrencies are actually solving problems created by people who worked in the mines and watched TV.
The truth is, across all generations, everyone is doing anything to live the most confortable life possible according to their convictions, and YouTubers today are not better promoting their shitty gamer drinks or VPN services than a 1980s vendor trying to sell as much diesel engines as possible. It’s even more true when it comes to corporate, or you’ll have to tell me what’s is Zuckerberg doing for the planet that Bill Gates is not.
At any given time there were people willing to change the world, trying to make it more fair. We’re just never enough. And being a millennial I can assure you it’s not changing anytime soon, even tho things are getting shittier and shittier.
Playing with cryptocurrency (monopoly money/disney dollars) is an incredibly energy intense process. Extremely wasteful and damaging just to play with some made up money.
Yeah, don’t put the blame on us. In all my 29 years of life climate change has always been a big topic no one has done anything about.
We’re living in this ridiculous gerontocracy where old lizards bought by corporations are making decisions to benefit said corporations for the next couple of months, all the while the coming generations suffer.
At this point it’s too late. It’s time to owe up, apologise for being so greedy that you used up the world, leaving nothing for coming generations.
If you’re 29 that means you’re borderline millennial/gen z. Definitely not blaming you here. You are correct, this has been an issue for our entire lives and the generations before us have done exactly nothing to curtail the destruction of our planet
although it’s very common for the earlier generation to blame the later generation for the world sucking (or what they percieve as “sucking”), in this case it doesn’t work because not every boomer and gen-x-er is a CEO or past CEO
like they’re wrong to blame the later generations for this, but that’s because it’s not mainly a generational thing
Looking at the voting results for younger generations, this isn’t even close to this simple. Yes, there is a slight shift towards more environmental policies/parties, but it is far from a majority even in the youngest age bracket that is allowed to vote (looking at voting results from the last general election in Germany).
They produce like double of what we need, it’s not only what we need and buy, capitalism is extremely inefficient in the usage of resources, which brought us into this mess.
Yeah. Anything that isn’t consumed is destroyed. Case in point, dumpster diving at grocery stores is illegal. Fast fashion companies destroy clothes that don’t sell.
The entire system is fucked.
Have you seen how much CEOs get paid?
Corporations can switch to greener alternatives AND pay workers a living wage AND make a profit, without having the consumers pay the price.
All it takes is the willingness of politicians to force them to. Corporations raise prices because they’re allowed to, and they’ll take any excuse they can get to get more money out of people.
Gas prices have skyrocketed. First it was covid’s fault. Then it was the war in Ukraine. All the while gas corporations have been seeing record-breaking profits. It’s all just greed.I think as someone who did “the things”, and that’s how I live now, it’s hard to look around and see basically no perceptible difference. The incentive is slim for the individual. The bulk of the population is never going to make those changes.
That’s why change needs to come from the corporate level through regulation.
People generally just want food, shelter, health, and comfort. And most people in the world are struggling to maintain food and shelter.
Their evironmental footprint doesn’t even register as an afterthought.
That’s what I was going to suggest but then I always feel this is a complicated problem and it’s not just one thing. It’s a lot of efforts on in different areas, but regulation is certainly one. It shouldn’t be that hard to do considering it’s one of the main responsibilities of government.
Yes! If we’re expecting corporations to grow a conscience and “Do the right thingTM” then we’re doomed.
Though I do think the corporations are somewhat responsible for the narrative that everyone is powerless except for them. People pushing the “but the corporations!” while being unwilling to make any changes themselves are actually just carrying water for them. Promoting malaise and doomerism is just letting them have their way.
At any rate trying to appeal to the corporations to do the right thing is a complete waste of time. We need to make more effort ourselves. Which means making an effort to reduce our own carbon emissions as individuals. While also participating in the political process to create regulations that force the corporations to do the right thing. Because they sure as hell won’t do it on their own no matter how much people whine about it on the internet.
They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.
And there are portions of people in our society that will pay for those minimal prices either because they can’t afford anything else, or strictly because it’s convenient for them to spend that little so that they have more money left over to do more stuff in their life elsewhere.
But there are also people that are willing to sacrifice and make changes to their lifestyles and spending practices to accommodate the impacts of their actions.
The same is true with corporations. Some large corpos in the world are actively trying to move towards sustainable, circular economies. I’m doing a lot of research right now into the textile industry, and two of the biggest corporations in that space that I’ve seen are doing decent work on the two fronts I previously mentioned are Lenzing (TENCEL™) and Aquafil (ECONYL®).
Lenzing uses wood of various species from places in Europe, all managed well and FSC/PEFC controlled, to draw out fibers and filaments that are just as fine and useful as polyester fibers/filaments, yet with the added bonus of biodegradability. They also recycle cotton clothing from collection centers in Spain and some larger textile service companies in southern Europe and mix that in with their wood-based feedstock to produce the same rayon fibers.
Aquafil runs on a similar model to Lenzing, except they base theirs on nylon instead of rayon. Aquafil collects ghost nets from around Europe and South America, along with other corporations’ scrap nylon (pre-consumer waste) and post-consumer waste from a number of brands (e.g. sunglasses, jackets, etc.) to regenerate nylon back into the same quality as you would find in virgin materials. Now, I don’t think that plastic is sufficient anymore thanks to the non-degradable waste associated with it, but it’s better than nothing.
Are there flaws with those 2 companies: of course. Their chemical processes might not be 100% closed loop and their claims might be overexaggerated in ways, but it’s better than nothing.
Anyways, what this examples shows is that there are corporations and even people on the ground that are willing to make more sustainable choices because they legitimately see the benefit of doing so compared to convention. Someone else might describe this as a form of an adoption life cycle, where you have those more willing to change and those less willing to change as practices and habits shift over time.
Could government help with that? I believe so. I think that’s just one lever of change though. If you’ve been following solar PV growth over the last decade and a half, then you know about the “contagion” phenomenon: some early adopters pick up solar, only for considerers and even late adopters to do the same as word of mouth and other social drivers influence decision making at a people level.
Could the same happen with other sustainable choices in the economy? I fall more into the early adopter camp, so I would say yes. I think corporations spend a lot of time and marketing convincing their customers that said corporations are the best and only options and that no other alternative exists out there: when there absolutely is or might be. Perhaps all it takes is demonstrating to people, doing, not talking, walking the walk, to change their minds. I think the same tactics could be used, in addition to government intervention.
Bottom-up + top-down is the strategy I’ve heard described by many proponents of sustainability, most notably Al Gore, and I’m all for it too. Luckily humans, at least in some countries around the world, live in free societies and can divide and conquer to work on both of these fronts to affect change.
You get that nuance out of here, young man/woman! We won’t have that kind of thing round these parts!
Can we please leave these canned responses on reddit
Can we leave simplistic, reductionist arguments on reddit?
I really think this narrative is counterproductive. It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun. They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.
No corporation is going to choose more environmentally friendly practices out of the goodness of their own hearts unless those practices are cheaper.
I didn’t get past you contradicting yourself in the first three sentences. Sorry.
Also if you only eat meat in the weekends then the rich peoples private jets will suddenly have no environmental impact
Is there a bracelet I can wear to show my solidarity with the people dying of heat stroke, or perhaps an instagram filter.
This argument keeps coming up as an excuse to do nothing.
- It’s not my fault but theirs!
- Why should I change when they won’t?
- I’m just one person against all these big corps, why try?
- Even if I stopped, it wouldn’t make a difference.
Pure defeatism neglecting even any bit of responsibility.
Yet people who say this will put another child on the planet, buy yet another product from Apple on release, love fast fashion, buy the cheapest goods possible, toss their meal as soon as they’re full, vote egoistically, take the cheapest trip to wherever, drive a car, toss cigarette butts on the ground, and so much more.
It’s always easier to blame others. Yes, corporations are shit, but remember, they are made up of people like you and I.
WE work there.
WE buy their crap.
WE vote for the same politicians over and over again (or don’t vote at all).
WE put another child on this planet to go through this shit.
WE as humans are the problem.WE as humans are the problem.
you can count the owners of the entities that produce the most greenhouse gases within 3 digits; it’s not “everybody”
Together we can fight at least 1% of the carbon emissions from top 100 corporations in the world :)
I wish our choices had a 1% impact… That seems extremely generous.
For example…
Go look at your local Walmart and it’s bazillion products. They expect to sell almost everything in that store multiple times within a month. All that generates enormous waste on a scale that’s literally impossible for the earth to sustain for another 100 years without total ecological collapse.
We’re living in the single most polluting decade in human history, every decade, since all of us were born. Even if the entire Lemmy user base become subsistence farming monks, the factories would just keep churning out poison unphased.
I’m not saying it’s bad for people to try and consume more responsibly. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a difference over any meaningful time period until there’s a radical change in how our global economy functions.
Environmental catastrophe will continue until we literally cannot ignore it, only then will we do anything substantial about it. Unfortunately that’s just how our society works.
we have the 80% solution and it’s nuclear power, but whatever y’all keep wailing and gnashing teeth and denying the obvious. I’m just gonna keep on living I guess and hope my house survives the shitty weather.
We have what, 10 years to try stop the planet to get over 1,5ºC? 20 over 2ºC?, that’s pretty much the time it takes to build a new nuclear power plant from 0.
We are too late.
“No need to change, NUCULAR will save us.”
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
If you were on reddit: “You have been permanently suspended for threatening to use violence.”
I’d always just drop a link. Got the message across, but never got me banned:
I always thought Lemmy (at least this instance) had stricter rules than Reddit. Seeing a comment here that outright wishes for billionaires to be culled is a huge culture shock.
Because we aren’t worried about offending advertisers. This is what real people think without being forced to be advertiser friendly.
Unfortunately, now the comment just says Removed
The comment itself is still there, just hidden. You can see it in the modlog, page source, or some apps.
It would do absolutely nothing at all. For every billionaire that is running some seedy enterprise that you don’t like, there are dozens if not hundreds of well paid people that are supporting that enterprise and would keep it going going forever.
Send them all to a for-profit prison I say!
Yeah, the vast majority of human kind would gladly own a multi billion dollar company even if that company were causing climate change.
I would gladly own one, I would also gladly pivot it towards not causing climate change.
Only problem is owning one in the first place; most are “publicly owned” by a bunch of investors who themselves are investment funds owned by some other bunch of investors like those putting their money in 401k plans.
It’s a nice tangle of cross-ownerships that ends up hurting the actual owners without them having any power to change anything.
Start at the top and keep going down the list until emissions fall far enough.
In case anyone wants to see what the comment that was censored was: https://lemm.ee/modlog?page=1&actionType=ModRemoveComment&userId=544429
Doesn’t seem to break the rules to me. The OP was simply stating what they would do, not advocating it
dang my comment was quadruple removed, no ragrets
you are a naughty boy.
pretty stupid reason to remove the comment.
Removed by mod
If only somebody warned us 50 or 100 years ago. Oh wait, they did.
More like over 200 years ago. There was a french female scientist that discovered the greenhouse effect before John Tyndall but I forgot her name and I’m at work rn, can’t search for it.
Are you thinking of Joseph Fourier? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
It was an American named Eunice Foote that detailed the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, but, give or take, it was also around the same time that many scientists came to the same or similar conclusions about this subject. So yes, we’ve been warned for over 200 years and have done exactly nothing to solve the problem. Why? $.
That’s it!
Yeah they were predicting an ice age. And technically we’re still in an ice age, so the planet has to get warmer to reach it’s natural balance point. But it could also get cooler, because we’re in an interglacial period. If we don’t want continental glaciation maybe we should be thankful that the planet’s warming and not cooling.
That’s a myth perpetuated by oil companies to discredit climate science. There was a single paper about it that was widely rejected as a crackpot theory by the larger scientific community. The consensus then was the same as it is now.
We fucked around, now we’re going to start finding out.
Captain Planet tried to tell us
So did Al Gore.
He’s a hero
If only we took pollution down to zero…
At this point it’d make things worse due to what climate researchers call the Faustian Bargain
Bjørn Samset of the University of Oslo and his colleagues used four climate models, which cover a range of climate sensitivities, to see what would happen to the global average temperature if the short-lived greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide etc) were kept at their current level, but CO2 emissions ceased once they have reached a level of 420 parts per million (ppm). (This is 15 ppm above the current level of 405 ppm, or just another five years of emissions at the current rate.)
The result was average warming of 1.35°C over the four models, above a late 19th century baseline. (It has been demonstrated that global average temperatures increase while CO2 is increasing, and then remain approximately constant until the end of the millennium despite zero further emissions.)
You know, when I was a kid, I kind of had this thought that maybe nobody was doing anything because there was nothing to be done. I was wrong on that, and it would still be unequivocally better the sooner we do this. But I wasn’t entirely wrong, and here we are. If we stopped yesterday, this shit would last into the next millennium!?
If nothing else, at least it made me very conscious of enjoying everything I had.
Ahh, I see. Interesting read/study. I wouldn’t say they call it the Faustian bargain, but an example of a Faustian bargain. I suppose they could call it the Faustian bargain of GHG reduction, so that it doesn’t usurp the term entirely, haha.
(Also I was referencing lyrics from the captain planet theme :P)
“we”
Yeah, I didn’t even get to fuck around before finding out.
Yes, we. While some are of the impression, that climate change is only because of a select few, it’s because every single one of us consumers is to blame as well.
We have the option to buy climate friendly stuff, lots of times it’s just more expensive or maybe a little bit inconvenient. Also, why does one need the next new iPhone after owning the last one for just over a year? Why do we have to eat Avocados in some cases a few times a day, that are shipped around the world and need heaps of water to grow? Same as Bananas or Strawberries in Winter…the list is very long. Same as plastic free vegetables - “the cucumber has a brown spot? Nope, not getting that, I demand it’s spotless!” So companies wrap them in plastic.
If there’s demand, companies will fulfill that demand, if there’s no demand, companies stop doing that shit, because it doesn’t make any money. Every single one of us is responsible in some way or another, even if the percentage is very miniscule.
Most of the “we” who fucked around, are either already dead or dying of old age. They won’t find out a thing.
The “we” who believed and trusted them… along those who didn’t… yeah, those “we” will find out.
I wouldn’t just put this on those generations, Exxon and the oil industry and their government dogs and very wealthy and powerful people and their minions are who deserves the most of the blame, the rest of us were powerless to stop it or brainwashed by the propaganda and disinformation being produced by the oil industry and their many allies, like Kenneth Hamm and the Young Earth Creationist movement, the American GOP, the British Tory’s, Putin’s Ruzzia, The Gulf states, the auto industry, and so many more.
Do you mind posting something meaningful instead of a tired and boring aphorism?
It’s not like posting anything meaningful here will change anything. The fuckheads that put the world in this situation laugh at our faces and of anyone who tries to undo their shit. They have money, what are we going to do? Sue them? They’ll buy every lawyer everywhere. Ask for political reforms? Yeah, maybe in 2050 something might pass. Picket outside the companies? Gee, that worked so well with Occupy Wall Street, didn’t it?
You realize there’s only two ways this is going to be dealt with, right? One, we have to murder the rich assholes who invested in fossil fuel production. Two, everyone needs to be able to migrate everywhere; climate migration is going to have to be embraced, even if it means a bunch of selfish bastard conservatives don’t like the economic fallout. But no, that’s not good enough for any of you to look at and say “okay, we have a chance to make the most of this”.
My childhood in the late 90s and early 00s was STOLEN from me by government cronies who literally ripped me away from my family for several years. I lived in BC, Canada. I was BORN here in Canada and my dad and grandfather were as well. There’s no reason I alone shouldn’t have gotten to enjoy that period, playing Pokemon and Neopets in my parent’s home.
But no. Thanks a lot to all you fuckers, the economic golden age that has existed since the 50s is gone forever and I’ll never live to see anything remotely as optimistic. I hate all of you and if this whole damn planet doesn’t choke on you not giving up just a bit of comfort so people less fortunate than you don’t have to struggle just to make ends meet, I will literally start setting oil refineries on fire. GO FUCKING DIE, EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU.
deleted by creator
You might be about to get it in the coming years, too. Temperature increases have been tentatively linked to violence.
deleted by creator
Serious business only
It’s not about being goofy. It’s about repeating the same damn thing for the millionth time. It gets annoying and adds no value to the conversation.
That’s what I really disliked about what reddit had become. A post with 500+ comments and having to scroll through the same fucking comment over and over again because everyone thinks they’re so fucking clever but didn’t bother to read any of the comments and see that a dozen other schmucks have made the exact same comment.
I was so hoping that crap like this, FAFO, and the other weak sauce bullshit wouldn’t make it over here. I was stupid for even hoping that.
That’s literally impossible when you’re on the internet, you just hope to see less of it.
It’s slacktivism. If we keep saying the meme words something is bound to come from it
To what end? You think a user comment on Lemmy is going to change emissions policies? Direct your ire somewhere it might actually make a single bit of difference instead of just perpetuating the infighting that gets nothing done. If you’re going to waste your time on the subject, spend your thumb-taps on an email to your congressman instead.
We’re way past that.
Don’t worry guys, everything is fine. We just need to [redacted] and this will all go back to normal in no time.
Yeah, my dad says fux news did it’s just a cycle. So, no worries bro.
Hello my name is [redacted] I work for [redacted], all we need to do is [redacted].
Don’t you worry about [redacted], let me worry about blank!
Awesome. Awesome to the max.
Removed by mod
I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..
Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.
When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.
I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.
That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level.
I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..
Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.
When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.
The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.
I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.
This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.
Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.
Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.
You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up.
There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.
It’s just that if you explain things as they are, nobody understands you, and if you simplify (by providing such made up analogies and examples), those same people (like you) act snobbish (while you personally really shouldn’t).
You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.
What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.
About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.
Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.
Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.
There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.
80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless. It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.
What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.
What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn’t exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.
About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.
Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you’ve read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.
Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning.
Of course. So what?
I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said.
Not a rebuttal, just a response.
My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless.
I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn’t be meaningless.
It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.
It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through “brown” means wouldn’t be. For my example I don’t need anything more specific.
Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.
What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works
I’m sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they’d like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.
If somebody is arguing in good faith, they’ll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.
is not based on reality
So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?
Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.
The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I’m talking about is on you. Since I’ve said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don’t know what you were trying to say.
That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level
Is exactly what’s wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda…brown.
I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.
You see, “neanderthal” is a metaphor, it doesn’t mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.
In my case I’m using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your “shouldn’t use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it” argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.
It relies on a false assumption that progress can’t be achieved because anything that’s good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what’s currently destroying the planet.
Oh, I’ll write it even simpler.
What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.
It’s not that I didn’t understand you the first time. It’s that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.
Ah. No, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the “dirty” way is worse than spending less.
Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.
I don’t see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.
Your argument is clear. There’s an opportunity cost to Green.
What you’re missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.
But you have 2 flaws in your logic.
-
we aren’t in that situation right now and I’d like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there’s a snowball effect you’re ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!
-
Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they’re up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.
- The indication of this is distorted by subsidies for green. And “we” here ignores most of the planet.
It’s good that it’s begun.
- Is it better than nuclear?
-
Actually an actual Neanderthal might be good enough to argue with you but the rest of us wouldn’t get it
Well, yeah, I should have used Australopithecus instead of Neanderthal.
It’s a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures… but not every day for multiple weeks.
Oh. 40C average is something hellish.
You’re just a moron
Finally instead of glueing together entities you don’t understand in text, as neural nets may do, you use the only argument available to your kind. I’m satisfied by this conversation finally.
The EU needs to wake up and go hard on companies and industries. No mercy, no half-assing, just legislate the absolute shit out of them for once so that maybe our children can survive and live in not so terrible conditions, because not so terrible is the best we can hope for at this point.
The rest of the world too obviously, but the EU seems the most likely to do so.
That’s what we are trying to do. But the fossil fuel lobby is still very strong and parties on the right are weaponizing every legal decision to polarise the people. Take the new (still in progress) german heating law for example; It wants to replace the installation of older oil/gas heaters with efficient heating pumps/district heating/hybrid (among other things, but that is the most important thing).
Populist media and right wing parties used this to stir up the people. (“the goverment is outlawing your heater, you need to replace it now or loose your home…” etc.) Simple stuff like that; but it’s working - the right is on the rise. And they are, of course, completely against man made climate change.
I been following Tony Seba for years.
He puts good videos out on YouTube.
People naturally are unable to understand exponentials but he goes through the maths and shows that the world is going to change fast.
I have more faith in mathematics and economics than I do in massive societal change.
So the EU goes hard on those companies and then what? the just transfer to another countrie that doesn’t. Result would be the same polution but throught customs and transportation prices in the EU would rise. Maybe the consumption behavior will change through that what could be beneficial but the overall situation with current inflation and such would get much worse. I’m not sure if this is the best way to engage this problem.
Most of the air pollution happens in the developing countries. The EU would have to go imperial to force industries in such parts of the world under similar regulations.
Innovation and investment is the way to go.
In a lot of countries the electrical supply is unreliable, going down regularly
Innovate to create full-scale renewable grids (best if they can run decentralised when necessary) and invest in implementing these solutions world-wide
Use incentives, like trade agreements for countries, regions, or companies that implement the green tech to make it worthwhile
You want the EU to go hard because you’ve given up on the rest of the world?
I mean I get where you’re coming from but that’s not even remotely resembling a solution.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but as far as U.S.A. is concerned, it’s not a nation anymore it’s a corporation. U.S.A. rewards the worst of the worst and it’s too late for anything to change here.
No, like I said this also applies to everyone else, I just personally don’t think it’s going to happen…
deleted by creator
I was having a conversationg with some red necks a few years ago. They were all talking about winter’s not the same here anymore, above freezing half the winter, not as much snow, summer is weird is goes right through October now and we don’t really get an autumn anymore.
“Weather’s not like it used to be,” one of thems said, and I said, “yep the climate is changing.” They stared at me with their mouths open.
These retards are literally watching it happen with their own eyes and they still won’t believe it. It’s insane.
deleted by creator
The biggest problem with politics these days is there can’t be ANY overlap between the parties. They can’t agree on ANYTHING. If a democrat says “I like breathing oxygen,” a republican will say he prefers breathing something else. There’s so much that people in both parties agree on in principle, but they can never say it. I think the left is more willing to agree with the right, because the left is more principled, but a republican is simply incapable of telling someone on the left “you’re right and I agree with you.” They instead have to be contrarian about everything. Whatever the left says, never agree with it, and make a statement of complete opposition, no matter what. When the left starts supporting a war against Russia, the right starts supporting Russia. It’s sickening.
While it may be arrogant to insist it’s all mankind’s doing, it’s foolish to assume it isn’t.
How is it arrogant to believe what every scientist says the data shows?
”Don’t be daft. We’re in a warming phase.”
Yeah, here’s what you tell them. Temperatures were at baseline when the industrial revolution began. That’s just a handful of generations. We’ve now seen an increase of, what 2 degrees C since then? I don’t know the exact number. The point is, this sort of increase is not present anywhere else in the geological record. It takes thousands of years for average global temperatures to naturally increase to a point like this one. There are literally no hard spikes–until the industrial revolution began. The only credible takeaway is that humans are the problem.
You’re right of course, but logical arguments aren’t the way with these people. It’s emotional at this point, and that is where you have to meet them.
The only way to win with these people is to not play
My housemate is like that, came up with some nonsense about how he saw a video the other day about how there was climate change happen when the Vikings were around or something so it’s not as clear cut as people think. And today, with it barely breaking 20 degrees in July, said half jokingly that we need more carbon. The shit summer here this year is fuel for his fire. Complete moron.
Don’t even waste your breath convincing idiots like that. They are too uninformed on too many topics to be worth investing the effort in. You’ve got a good shot at convincing people who are on the fence but culture warriors who rely on Steven Crowder for their talking points aren’t going to be convinced by anyone or anything.
Yeah I’ve given up on him to be honest. Kind of sad, we grew up together and he used to be quite alternative but has been sliding into someone I don’t recognise. I can’t comprehend it and most of the time I just let him expose what an idiot he’s become. Just the other day he said “Trump wasn’t that bad, he was the best of a bad bunch”. I could hardly believe it… absolutely staggering. But yeah, like you said, it’s a lost cause and he will only get worse and lost in his toxic Facebook groups.
I’m no climate scientist, but from the research I’ve done, there are phases like this to Earth’s natural climate cycle… Earth has gone through very warm eras, and very cold eras, aka ice ages.
If you look back at our modern history closely enough, climate science in the early years of the industrial age showed that we were headed towards a new ice age with lower than normal global mean temperatures… Clearly that didn’t come to pass.
There’s also an unprecedented amount of mammal biomass on the planet (Hank Green did a yt short talking about this recently); and I think it goes without saying that, there’s an astronomical amount more pollution than before.
Examining the evidence, the climate is changing more rapidly and more extremely than before and the causes for this are obvious to anyone paying attention… Simply, more people & mammal biomass, more industry, with next to no environmental protections that actually make an impact, with massive deforestation and destruction of sea life, where a significant amount of oxygen producing and CO2 filtering is happening.
So what I’m saying is, yes, there are “warming phases” to Earth’s natural ecosystem, however this rapid and drastic of a change is uncharacteristic of the natural changes or planet naturally goes through. At the very least, people should recognize that the amount of pollution and destruction of the natural ecosystem is damaging our planet’s ability to sustain life… Like human life. So whether the environmental protections are because of climate change or simply a self serving goal of trying to keep our planet habitable by humans, long-term, honestly, everyone should support environmental protections.
“… It’s not normal”
It wasn’t normal.
Nowadays it is.
Hurray for new normals!
I’m Italian myself. The issue with this heat is that it’s humid too, I live in the riviera and we’ve had constant 35-37°C weather with high humidity for a week now
Yesterday here in Germany it was 36°C with high humidity. This single day was enough.
Yeah, the humidity is the worsts. Got to change my shirt after every walk outside.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t know if you’ve realized it, but without help from some advanced alien species, we are already as good as gone. The entire world is controlled by the absolutely worst people, and there’s no indication that anything can be done to save us at this point. Climate disasters, AI, lies and deceit on a global scale, astronomical imbalance of wealth… folks, we’re already fucked.
I mean, the few have traditionally had the same weakness: the many…
I’m reading Ministry for the Future and it does help imagine a world where we do get more fucked but we do turn things around even if we can’t get things how they used to be.
If it takes 100 or 200 years, we’ll still have war.
There is an argument to be had that many of the wars we’ve seen over the past 25 years, have already been at least in part rooted in access to water. Billions more will get impacted like that over the next century, with tens of millions of migrants a year, every year fleeing from both war and unhabitable conditions, for the next 100+ years.
We’ve barely seen the beginning of it.
and people say global warming/climate change is not real
It’s not simply a climate change. It’s a coined term by the fossil fuel industry. Like BP introduced the individual carbon footprint, this one should also be ignored. It’s a climate crisis.
Politicians and publications that acknowledge the climate crisis should probably start using that term instead of climate change then.
I wonder if that is used intentionally? Like they would have a reason to make a narrative of denial?
It’s because the “fact” the the fossil fuel industry coined the term climate change is false.
This is the preferred term by scientists, and it has been since before “global warming” became a term.
Calling it climate change implies it is of natural change. It belittles the criticality of the human induced influence. The fossil fuel industry knows exactly why they are calling it climate change and not climate crisis. Global warming is also, as much as climate change, scientifically correct, but let’s be honest. Since when does the industry care about scientifical facts? They use that in ill faith.
It’s called climate change because it’s more than global warming. A lot of things are changing, and they’re all bad. To just say global warming would be ignoring all of the other problems.
I agree. Global warming is one aspect of many of our current climate crisis. And it will become worse when politics won’t restrict the reign of fossil fuel industries.
The fossil fuel industry denied climate change was happening at all for a long time after the term was being used by scientists.
I was being cynical. I’m fully aware of their hellbent ideologies.
Oh they are switching from “Its not real” to “its all over, we can’t do anything, so invest in fossils even more” (the invest part is an exaggeration). I want to believe that most of those messages are from paid actors (oil industry, authoritarian regimes).
I was working outside this week (Southern US) and it was an absolutely miserable week. After a half an hour I was drenched in sweat, and it was rolling off my hard hat, getting in my eyes, and I was forced to pace myself and work much slower than I would otherwise be able to do because the heat was that intense.
I was able to drink some of my coconut water reserve because it has the things plants crave.
It’s definitely the worst summer heat I’ve felt since ever.
For the longest time, measures against climate change were decried for potentially impacting “the economy”. Well now we’re going to see the impact to “the economy” with climate change getting worse. I assume it’ll be a bigger impact than if we had invested in more sustainability earlier. Slower work pace outside just being a small taste of the impact.
Why was your hard hat sweating? I wear a hard hat at work and I don’t think I’ve ever had sweat rolling off it. That doesn’t seem physically possible.
This one has a cloth like padding at the forehead, it collects the sweat but gets saturated and beads up on the front and rolls off.
It’s nice to have if it isn’t a lot of sweat, but when your entire face is drenched, it does that.
Ohhh ok, I have a similar hard hat. I wear a chill-its cap under mine, it’s more comfortable and has a sweat band built in
i imagine it was the humidity from the ambient air and not from his head.
Wait until next summer!
whatever could we have done to stop this!!!
Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
The planet will be fine. Humans I’m not sure about…
Humans and most other creatures
Please don’t post the same old replies every time they seem fitting. We’ve all read them a thousand times.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry: “we’re just trying to find the guy who did this!”
I dunno what I could have done, everything I try to have an impact on is always a pittance compared to the size of the problem, but I know what I can do going forward.
I’m quitting. I’m having zero children. Good luck, have fun the rest of you.
Meanwhile big polluters like Shell and others help pumping emissions and try to keep carbon based economy for short term profit 🙄
While funding messaging like “if you didn’t use your air conditioner when it was 118f it would certainly help”
