Printable View
At least now I know I'm not on your blocked list.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
FYI, the predominant reason for Amazon deforestation is not to build concrete cities but for farming, especially cattle grazing which is subsidised by the Brazilian government. So if you really want to stop it you should eat less beef. Resisting policies to move away from fossil fuels is certainly not going to help the Amazon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defore...zon_rainforest
Mr Fanti proclaims himself to be a libertarian. Don't they believe that governments should not interfere in transactions between private parties? No wonder he never wants to talk about solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The article referred to Chinese-owned mines in Africa. I don't doubt that there are bad things going on, but they also exploit their own workers back home. China is the world's biggest coal producer by a long way, followed by India and Indonesia, all of which have weak worker protections. The number of exploited workers producing coal would be way larger than those producing cobalt for batteries. In any case, the real solution is to pressure governments in these countries to improve worker protections, just as the advanced economies did after the industrial revolution.
I'm certainly not intending to waste much further time 'debating' with the master of the non sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I suspect the focus on population is just a handy pretext for dismissing any consideration of how to change peoples' and companies' behaviour; eg "what's the point in us changing when the real problem is the billions of people in the rest of the world?" As we can infer, Fanti does not to raise these other issues because he actually wants something done about them. The 'whataboutism' is just a device to divert discussion away from policy solutions he finds ideologically unpalatable.
Climate Crisis Is Killing Off Key Insects and Spreading Insect-Borne Diseases:
https://truthout.org/articles/climat...orne-diseases/
Yep!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
When all the natural land areas are slowly being reduced due and turned into concrete & asphalt due to "urban growth" (i.e., over population) what does one expect?
The planet is a finite size and can only tolerate a finite amount of humans - an example of this is are desert environments complaining about lack of water. Well duh, those desert environments can't handle multiple cities of millions....
But hey, if one chooses to believe that the planet can handle an infinite amount of humans, then go on......
If you took a keener interest in demography -plenty of posts on the subject in this section over the years- you would be aware that most demographers think 10 billion is the maximum and that human growth is already slowing and more generally will show a marked decline around 2050. That doesn't make it easy for people like you who will be around long after I am gone, and there is then the question of balanced or unbalanced societies with regard to cohorts of old and young, but you could look on the bright side and believe that green policies and population decline will make Planet Earth more appealing in 2082 than Mars. Maybe even cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
But who has the greater obsession with transforming precious arable land into concrete -China or Israel?
It's increasingly difficult to remain optimistic...
Major sea-level rise caused by melting of Greenland ice cap is ‘now inevitable’: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-27cm-climate
Criticism intensifies after big oil admits ‘gaslighting’ public over green aims:
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-crisis
War Spending Like This as the Climate Emergency Grows Is a Global Nightmare:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...obal-nightmare
Lula's Win a Victory for Amazon Rainforest and Global Climate:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...global-climate
The human species is insane...
Climate crisis: past eight years were the eight hottest ever, says UN: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-ever-says-un
Addressing Climate Change Will Not “Save the Planet”
The dismal reality is that green energy will save not the complex web of life on Earth but the particular way of life of one domineering species.
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/...-green-energy/
It looks like the next move of the climate change denialists in the Republican Party will be to punish companies that try to take the environment into account. So much for intellectual consistency from the party of free enterprise.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world...rs/ar-AA15QzNV
It's hard to see any rationality behind this. Companies presumably do this because they think it serves their long-term interests to plan for a transition to clean energy rather than putting their heads in the sand. Yes, fossil fuel fuel producers will lose from this, but many other companies will gain. Industries rise and fall all the time due to technological change and other factors, but we don't take the view that existing producers must be preserved at all costs.
It is irrational on many levels. They are boycotting investment firms that take pledges to avoid investing in companies with a large carbon footprint. Are investment firms not allowed to consider whatever factors they want when choosing what to invest in (subject to their fiduciary duties)?
They also oppose scope 3 reporting, which would just require companies to publicly report the environmental impact of their suppliers. If investors are interested in that information and it can be reported accurately, then it should be made available. Their concern that it would harm stock prices is based on the fear that people would be interested in that information and make investment choices based on it.
The first response is really like trying to punish pension funds and investment funds who wouldn't want to invest in tobacco companies or arms suppliers for social reasons (or externalities).
As you point out, it really is a case of "free-market" Republicans interfering on the behalf of entrenched companies.
Doomsday Clock set at 90 seconds to midnight: https://thebulletin.org/2023/01/pres...s-to-midnight/
And from Canada...
There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there...nited-nations/
That’s a right wing organization funded by Exxon among others. There were also “experts” who said smoking cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. Big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Problem is, there are also left wing funded organizations as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
Which is why IMHO science and politics should not mix and stay as far as part as possible.
Here in NYC we had a snow drought that was finally broken on February 1st. Now I'm not going to lie, considering what a pain in the ass in can be to walk on the streets and sidewalks here whenever there is a significant snowfall, it was refreshing to have a mild winter for a change. Especially since it was only 13 years ago this happened:
//abc7ny.com/nyc-christmas-blizzard-new-york-city-2010-snowstorm/5788832/
That was a start of a particular rough winter. I remember seeing remnants of snow on the ground until late April/Early May.
Having said all that, its still kind of weird to be having a 62 degree day in the middle of February. Or seeing the sun shine in morning like its late March/early April. I'm used to the cold and grey days where if you look out the window, it could be either 10:30 in the morning or 4:00 in the afternoon.
There is still plenty of time for there to be a significant snowstorm here and spring is still 5-6 weeks away. But I'm starting to wonder if this winter was just a blip or the beginning of the new normal. Because there is truly something wrong when you start feeling pollen allergy symptoms two days after Valentine's Day.
I do find it a bit "peculiar" to hear folks say on the one hand:Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
-"Climate change & Global Warming"!!!
But yet on the other....
-"I'm really enjoying these mild winters"
Personally, I hate mild winters....
Climate Change is presented as a universal problem, but its impact not only changes from one country or region to another -we can understand this in terms of 'micro-climates'- but can differ in a relatively small area, as a study of Manhattan has shown, and in the case of NYC, one can assume the micro-climate of Long Island is different from that in the Bronx.
A ‘Third Way’ to Combat Climate Change: Microclimates - TheWaterChannel
See How Temperatures In Manhattan Differ From Block To Block - Gothamist
More dire warnings. We're collectively saying, because of global warming, that future generations have no value...
Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...warning-on-15c
Only if you thought milder winters were likely to be the only consequence of climate change, which would make you a fool. Have you failed to notice there's been an increase in extreme weather events around the world in recent years?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
It's not only that, because the effects will be felt within the lifetimes of most of us. It's not like 30 years ago when it seemed far off in the future. Collectively we are saying that we are prepared to accept huge risks in our future just to avoid some cost and inconvenience in changing our ways now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
What the sceptics never consider is the cost of being wrong. If the scientists turn out to be too pessimistic, the worst outcome is that we spent too much on transitioning to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. If they turn out to be right (or even too optimistic) the potential worst outcomes are much worse.
Perhaps you don't care, but you really should do some basic research to save embarassing yourself. People who have looked into the so-called 500 experts have found that only a few actually worked in climate science and many were not even scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...nce-breitbart/
"I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.
The most prevalent groups of signatories were geologists (19%) and engineers (21%)—many of whom were implicitly or explicitly involved in fossil energy extraction. Most of the rest were physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. A large fraction of the signatories were not scientists, but rather business executives, writers, activists, and lobbyists (totaling 11.3%)."
An analysis of 75 Australian signatories came to similar conclusions, with only few having published peer-reviewed research on the subject.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-...gency/11734966
Tuesday was world’s hottest day on record – breaking Monday’s record:
Tuesday was world’s hottest day on record – breaking Monday’s record | Climate crisis | The Guardian
Another piece of worrying climate news. The sea ice around Antarctica has not reformed this year as it usually does in winter - apparently a one in 7.5 million year event.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-...vent/102635204
It's all bull
Three words that sum up the new policy options on climate change led by the Telegraph since the Uxbridge by-election and the claim ‘the people’ can’t afford the measures being taken. So this is the moment not to change policy, but scrap it completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by completely_nailed
Because science is bullshit, right?
More on the above, as one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, Roger Allam has, according to the Telegraph, attacked London Mayor Sadiq Khan's Ultra-Low-Emissions-Zone proposals --
"The founder of Extinction Rebellion has hit out at Sadiq Khan’s ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) as “intrusive” and “regressive” for the lowest-paid Londoners.Roger Hallam made the comments in a thread on social media site X, in which he also attacked “urban middle-class neo-liberal Left” thinkers behind the Mayor’s road charge.
He was responding to a Guardian column by Prof Devi Sridhar that argued in favour of Ulez and low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs). Hallam criticised supporters of the schemes for a “total lack of sensitivity and self-awareness”, claiming it showed a “myopic privilege”."
Extinction Rebellion founder hits out at Ulez as protesters have tyres slashed (yahoo.com)
Looks like the Proletariat are going to have to re-organize around, ahem, "Citizen's Assemblies' courtesy of the leadership of ER, who presumably will then delay all Green Policies that eat into the wages of the poor until 'After the Revolution'....so those stuck in the middle of this 'climate crisis' or climate crisis, are now being hammered from the right and the left, if that is what ER's situationist-style politics amounts to....
Republican hopefuls shrug when asked about climate crisis during debate:
Republican hopefuls shrug when asked about climate crisis during debate | US elections 2024 | The Guardian
Rishi Sunak has decided, or has been advised that the public don't want to fund Net Zero policies in their current form. So the PM is to tinker with the details while claiming the Govt is still committed to Net Zero as a policy. The details indicate that it is the belief that winning the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election was a public rejection of ULEZ in the Constituency, the irony being that the Ultra Low Emission Zone policy in Boris Johnson's seat was the policy of the man himself when he was London Mayor.
Thus, the science has again become irrelevant, it is all about 'the pound in your pocket', and whether or not it is too expensive to implement schemes such as ULEZ, too demanding to expect a full transition away from fossil fuel driven vehicles by 2030, and yet again the 'why are we doing it when others are not'? So much for the 'Going it alone' justiification for Brexit, and the curious situation that now puts the UK on the same trajectory as the EU when it comes to EV's.
For Sunak though, what he thinks could be a vote winner, has angered some in his own party, but it remains to be seen if enough of them exist to threaten his leadership. As for Climate Change....we're doomed!
Rishi Sunak considers weakening key green policies - BBC News
Who are the polluter elite and how can we tackle carbon inequality?
Who are the polluter elite and how can we tackle carbon inequality? | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian
The jet set: 200 celebrities’ aircraft have flown for combined total of 11 years since 2022:
The jet set: 200 celebrities’ aircraft have flown for combined total of 11 years since 2022 | Travel and transport | The Guardian
Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combinedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ben
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
And yet, the western world continues to do business with them....
What wasn't mentioned is that China still has lower emissions per capita than the USA (10.95t vs 17.9t) and many other developed countries. That seems like the more relevant metric for the burden of responsibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita
Not doing business with China would only reduce world emissions if the economic activity switched to countries that use lower emissions energy sources.
One of the main solutions to the climate crisis is for us humans to move away from a meat diet towards a plant-based diet, because it releases so many areas where making crops to feed the animals are destroying rain forests. And one of the deep tragedies of the human race is that relatively few seem to want to do so. Some even fight against it, which is like looking at someone slowly killing themselves while praising the weapon they do it with. This, combined with other factors where humans live as if we are on an infinite planet with infinite "resources" makes it logical, but very sad, that some philosophers simply talk about the human race as a failed species now.
How does the growing global population and increasing consumption affect biodiversity?
https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...-biodiversity/
Here's to hoping that land for a plant-based diet is still around after everything green gets paved over with asphalt and concrete.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirgofino