-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Be honest, do you actually think we will stop climate change in its tracks? Are we good enough for that?
- Thread starter Magic-Man
- Start date
No. It's irreversible. It's too late.
All we can do now is slow it down. Which I'm also doubtful of.
All we can do now is slow it down. Which I'm also doubtful of.
I'm in the camp of "It'll only be solved if we stumble into a magic bullet solution"
The world will never undergo the structural changes to actually fight climate change.
The world will never undergo the structural changes to actually fight climate change.
Not a chance. The coal industry from the 2016 election and beyond is enough to show it's frankly a lost cause. Coal is more expensive and less efficient than renewable energy and is an incredibly small job sector (only 50k coal mining jobs in the US) and yet it was a massive outsized issue that remains a talking point to this day. Even when you bring in the entire coal power sector, it's a smaller job market than renewable energy and again, it's more expensive. If an economic winner that is significantly better for the environment can't win, nothing can.
Yes, read a book.
They're officially operating under "socialism with Chinese characteristics," those characteristics being corrupt and money-hungry.
They also produce most of goods consumed in US and EU.
Also, the average American pollutes 4 times more than the average Chinese, and that's not even counting the carbon footprint of all the goods they import. So, Americans and Europeans should stop blaming China and take responsibility of their unsustainable lifestyle.
Good companion article for the thread. It's a somewhat beefy one, so spare some time. It goes through a lot of different things from talking about the measure of DOOOOOOM/optimism we use to some cold hard science.
And companion video of course!
And companion video of course!
Not a chance. Regardless of what anyone does to stop climate change, there are far too many people and entities working against them with far more potential impact.
No, climate change will not be stopped in its tracks.
The question is really if the affects of climate change can be slowed, and then what the ultimate affect on the ecosystems and human societies on the planet.
The question is really if the affects of climate change can be slowed, and then what the ultimate affect on the ecosystems and human societies on the planet.
Nope, won't be stopped.
Last I read the issue isn't so much climate change, more the speed of climate change so at this stage it becomes about how to slow it down.
Last I read the issue isn't so much climate change, more the speed of climate change so at this stage it becomes about how to slow it down.
Yes, because screaming "WERE ALL FUCKED!" ad infinitum is so much better solution./s
I mean if you look at ResetEra and see the negativity and that a lot people have given up before even starting to fight...
would you think we can get to the "max 1.5 degree more" goal?
would you think we can get to the "max 1.5 degree more" goal?
User Banned (1 Day): Trolling in a serious thread
ur mom will be fine rofl
I think we'll get there at some point, but there's going to be a multitude of devastating events until then.
It's going to hurt, and it's going to keep hurting, but with things like this, we as a species need to feel that hurt in order to spur us into action.
Numbers on a chart and fancy graphics aren't nearly as convincing as your house being on fire, and they never will be.
So yes, I'm hopeful. But people are gonna die and/or be displaced, that's for sure.
It's going to hurt, and it's going to keep hurting, but with things like this, we as a species need to feel that hurt in order to spur us into action.
Numbers on a chart and fancy graphics aren't nearly as convincing as your house being on fire, and they never will be.
So yes, I'm hopeful. But people are gonna die and/or be displaced, that's for sure.
Posts like this and the quoted are extremely unhelpful and unnecessary. You are more than welcome to believe differently than many people in this thread but framing it as if it's just people following some kind of hivemind (I thought we were over this shit) or advocating violent death of innocents. Many of us who are pessimistic have come to that through a lot of thought and reflection---I do not relish living with the belief that my nieces and nephews will live in a severely degraded world.
It is also possible to be pessimistic and still believe in and work towards doing everything in our power to mitigate the catastrophes we expect to be ahead. It's not like the choice is between a near-religious belief in the ability of technology to save us and becoming a prepper in a dark cave, gun pointed at the door.
In fact, I very rarely express my beliefs on these matters and the reasons for those beliefs anywhere but here because, honestly, it's not fun.
Well I feel Climate Change will occur what ever we do (it just happens because of a lot of factors) but our imprint is being left on the planet so the goal is for us not to have one so that we arn't the cause of our own demise. Even a few degrees change will cause massive adjustments that will be needed, when you are working with such small amounts of variables, we have to do all we can to not negatively affect it.
Yeah, this.
Wealthy people will survive, everyone else is fucked.
Once we start seeing widespread drought and famine, is when things will change. A lot of the damage will be done but it's not an extinction level event... As much as some here make it out to be.
At this point it's not so much stopping it (too much profit in fossil fuels), but reversing it.
But it won't be fine since the sun will eventually destroy it though!
This. It's so damn heartbreaking cause it's simple but we'll never do it. If we can't solve climate change how can we ever expect to solve income inequality or fighting back against racism. I know we never will.
Cool point, don't see how that's relevant.
I'm not sure I understand what your point is. You can hold accountable a country that pollutes more than a country and a collective of countries do while also holding accountable that country and that collective of countries accountable as well.
Going green in Europe and north America is really inadequate, China and India need to cut their shit massively. Too fucking bad if they're trying to industrialise. But they won't because they'll continue to pay their workers peanuts and western companies and consumers will continue to prefer cheap shit.
100% no.
We used to talk about wealth inequality, in the future we'll talk about climate inequality too.
We used to talk about wealth inequality, in the future we'll talk about climate inequality too.
China and India only pollute more because the west has outsourced their industry and other pollutants to these countries and other developing nations. We have literally outsourced emissions. So when the west looks at their reducing emissions and says 'we're doing our bit' it's bollocks because global emissions haven't reduced, they've just moved.
This is why there is now a big push to calculate emissions based on consumption rather than where the emissions are geographically.
Are they wrong though? Reframing the discussion less around the disconnected and abstract notion of "saving the planet" that most human beings clearly don't give enough of a shit about to a discussion about not bringing about humankind's own destruction seems like a small change in the dialogue, but it is an important one.
Yup.
So we would downgrade things to humanity becoming an endangered species. So much better.
The point is that a massive part of China's contribution to climate change is fueled by global consumption and bringing them up is used as a way for shitty people to unburden their own responsibility for China's outsized carbon footprint and lay it on the country itself, rather than American and European industry pinching pennies by fleeing restrictive environmental protections.
While one can certainly say that the lax standards carry part of the problem, laying the blame at production export countries to absolve oneself of responsibility is a farce that deserves to be called out at every opportunity.
On a smaller level: the individuals can change their habits and that's great, but you won't get anywhere without wealth redistribution. If your living paycheck to paycheck, the last thing you're going to give a shit about is how you can help slow climate change. That's a lot of people not giving a shit.
I've seen people say that companies/corporations making the changes is profitable, but it's a long-term plan. Nocompany shareholder wants to wait 10-30 years to profit from their investment.
I've seen people say that companies/corporations making the changes is profitable, but it's a long-term plan. No
There is. It's just that the old bastards don't want to let go. Their time will come.
There is not a population "point" where the Earth can't sustain the human population anymore. It is always moving. It all depends on the knowledge and progress we make. The Earth was never sustainable for decent human life. The biosphere by itself is cruel and could wipe us at any moment. Only our progress made it sustainable for something else than mere survival. This progress can continue if we choose to.
Be strong for your daughter. Saying the world is dying is speculation on your part, the future ain't set. Yes the Earth is sick but there is still much life out there. Fight for what is left! Life will rebound one day or another.
That is certainly not what is happening. That issue doesn't have to do with "environmental protections" at all and more to do with average cost of living and profits. Especially in the case of America. Nearly everything imported to America can actually be sourced within the country but that would raise the prices across board for many items, introducing a change in lifestyle that would not be welcomed by the average citizen. The harming of the environment is a sidenote but one that is disturbing because it shows how self serving people and corporations will continue to be until the shit hits the fan.
Serious question:
How should governments reduce carbon emissions of their nations? Mandate all electricity be renewable within the next 5 years? Ban the sale of ICE motor vehicles now and ban use entirely in 10 ? Put a quota on the number of flights per day/week/month/year? Put quotas on meat consumption? Limit sale/ownership of electronics? Ban single use anything?
How should governments reduce carbon emissions of their nations? Mandate all electricity be renewable within the next 5 years? Ban the sale of ICE motor vehicles now and ban use entirely in 10 ? Put a quota on the number of flights per day/week/month/year? Put quotas on meat consumption? Limit sale/ownership of electronics? Ban single use anything?
Again, who is making this point in this discussion? The OP I was replying to stated that China is our last hope, and I said they aren't. I didn't say "well China is the only one to blame" and that the west is acting like they're doing their bit, which we know is bollocks.
Indeed. 2018 report on why this matters, why it's an actual loophole in terms of our CO2 mitigation plans, and a ton of charts, graphs, and data. I heavily suggest people read and digest reports like these to get a better understanding of the very complex relationships and history at play here.
It's actually both of those things. China became what it is because it had a perfect storm of low cost of living, lax environmental protections and an insanely large potential labour force. At the time when China exploded as the destination for manufacturing and assembly, no other country could match all 3 factors, and most still can't. But for the context of this discussion, lax environmental regulations is the factor in play. And it applies to ALL the countries that are production export countries like them in varying degrees, such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and others. China is merely the biggest player because of that previously-mentioned trifecta.
Except he's right. With American industry definitely not interested in doing anything about China's contribution to climate change at their behest, the only one who can force the issue with any expediency is China itself. I'm not convinced that it will happen, that's for damn sure, but China holds a shit-ton of power wrt forcing a lasting solution, that cannot be denied.
The Dutch supreme court basically told the Dutch government it has to do more to reduce carbon emissions. To 25 percent less than it was in 1990. Before the end of 2020. Now we're sitting at a 21 percent reduction I believe. It will be interesting to see how that will be achieved.