Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global warming

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Global warming

    Remember this every time you pick up another bag at the store or keep the lights on when you leave the house.We can all help our planet and each other by doing very simple things. I don't want you and I to just disappear. You can easily put solar panels on your roof, save water and light and not take plastic bags. It's not hard, right?
    Last edited by Cybergirl; 11-17-2022, 02:33 PM.

  • #2
    Esp. important for the up coming US elections: make climate change policy a vital part of your civic engagement. While every little bit we do as individuals can add up to a small part of the solution, who we pick to represent us in our governments, and how much we stay on their asses to keep up their promises on climate, matters way way way more.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cybergirl View Post
      Remember this every time you pick up another bag at the store or keep the lights on when you leave the house.

      I have the reusable ones. I have two "bags of bags", each from one of the two grocery stores close to me so I can present the cashier with bags purchased outside the store I'm in, avoiding them having to be scanned.

      Styrofoam is another big problem faced by environmentally responsible shoppers. In one of the aforementioned stores, I came across a neatly stacked pyramid of perfect GMO pears, each individually wrapped in a white styrofoam mesh. When actually recycled, it is often converted into diesel fuel, which is burned. There is no bin for styrofoam supplied by the city I live in, whose website asks people to bring accumulated polystyrene to the eco-center.

      Months ago, my friends organized a trip to a dinosaur museum, inviting my girlfriend and I. She was super-excited about the trip, never having been there. I had been there a long time ago in primary school. I received an announcement from a local environmental protest group about an event happening on the same day as our museum date. We stuck to our plans. I remember looking at the impressive assembly of bones of an extinct predator and recalling that members of my own species were gathered not far away to call for measures to avoid a similar fate for us.


      Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

      Comment


      • #4
        I also have been exclusively using re-usable bags for years now when I go to the supermarket. Although, honestly, all the individual consumer stuff when it comes to climate change... they feel more like a drop in a bucket. Especially compared to the whole fossil-fuel industry. Like, this has just come out in a UN-Report:

        Planet-heating emissions from oil and gas production could be three times higher than reported, according to a satellite monitoring project launched Wednesday that the UN chief said made it harder to "cheat".
        The new tool -- unveiled at United Nations COP27 climate talks in Egypt -- has pinpointed more than 70,000 sites spewing emissions into the atmosphere.
        Of those, the biggest emitter on the planet is the Permian Basin in Texas -- one of the largest oilfields in the world -- said former US vice president Al Gore, a project founder.
        "With new data on methane and flaring, we now estimate that the actual emissions are three times higher than what they have reported," Gore said.
        Flaring is the burning off of unwanted natural gas from oil and gas wells.
        Methane, emitted by leaks from fossil fuel installations as well as from other human-caused sources like livestock and landfills, is responsible for roughly 30 percent of the global rise in temperatures to date.

        Comment


        • #5
          This is my number one issue. I'm disillusioned by the barriers to entry that are put up, intentionally or not, by left wing environmentalist that discourage people with different views on other issues from joining the fight. Using the claim of a lone psychopath of being an "eco-fascist", when he had no history of participation in the larger climate change movement, to apply this as a pejorative term to anyone with environmental concerns who also have a conservative outlook regarding immigration prevents progress that is urgently needed in the face of a pending existential threat.

          In order to overcome the political influence of the fossil fuel industry, it is essential to include people from across the political spectrum and treat global warming a singular issue taking priority over other concerns. Failing that, the fossil fuel lobby will rely on the indignation of the people so insulted and excluded to enlist them on their side of the fight (or merely pacify them). But it just feels so much better to assume a position of moral superiority on everything than it does to include those one disagrees with.

          On the purely technical front, I'm encouraged by the possibility of Upwelling, even if effective use of upwelling technology seems a long way off.
          Last edited by HorizonParty2021; 11-10-2022, 09:54 PM.


          Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes, the Earth's climate is changing and there is overwhelming-evidence it's man-made.

            I usually have a backpack as I usually will ride a bicycle to the store; it's annoying because there's usually some security-guard telling I have to leave my backpack at the front of the store and I tell them I went to law-school; I know how to steal the legal-way.

            Comment


            • #7
              When has the predominately left-leaning environmentalist movement "softening" language actually made anything better, instead of just making it easier for some fossil fuel shill to slip in and make a bill worse?

              The right abandoned environmentalism despite it's obvious non-partisan importance first; not the other way around.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm not going to repeat the term, in case the mod shows up to say mere reference to it is too controversial to have a conversation about. It was necessary to use it once for clarity. In regard to other terms such as Global Warming versus the softer term Climate Change, it may very well be that it's use did facilitate one or more pieces of legislation losing their teeth, because a fossil fuel shill used it to downplay this existential crisis we are in. The difference between those and the one I originally referenced is that they are impersonal scientific terms and the other is a demonizing pejorative that is personal in nature.

                We cannot win if we regard the right as monolithic. People can be swayed, if we address them in a way that acknowledges them as fellow citizens rather than monstrous enemies. The second link I posted is of a video with two Conservative Environmentalists. That is evidence that the right is not a climate denying monolith with uniformly obedient members across the bottom. If you project the image of a right wing tv personality or politician onto everyone to the right of you, opportunities for progress on the most important issue may be lost.

                As someone who lives in Canada, I acknowledge that there is a degree of right wing lunacy experienced by people in America that I am not affected by as directly and I would probably view them more as a monolith if I had to deal with that. I am merely advocating for the strategy I believe would work for the issue most important to me, having lost quite a bit of sleep thinking about it over the years.
                Last edited by HorizonParty2021; 11-12-2022, 06:09 PM.


                Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HorizonParty2021 View Post
                  I'm not going to repeat the term, in case the mod shows up to say mere reference to it is too controversial to have a conversation about.
                  OK...

                  Well, I'll say the words. Eco-fascist wasn't something invented by the Christchurch shooter. It's been a fringe right extremist movement that's existed for at least 25 years that's wanted to hijack the climate crisis as an excuse to enact authoritarian rule under the guise of fixing the climate (even though just like said shooter, very few of them were radicalized by the environmentalism movement, because the climate crisis is a means to the end).

                  The left didn't make it up to demonize people. Far right nutjobs made it up as a self-identifier, or in some cases to attack left wing environmentalists under the usual attack method of assuming the left is not sincere in their beliefs and only espouse ideals to obtain power (Alex Jones calls the Green New Deal eco-fascism because the thinks the point of the GND is to use environmentalism to institute left-wing authoritarianism even though that's not fascism but he's not really a smart man).

                  I've never seen left-leaning environmentalists adopt "eco-fascist" as a standard derogatory label for right-wing environmentalists; esp. not ones that are serious about environmental conservation. I've only see it used on the right.

                  We cannot win if we regard the right as monolithic.
                  We also can't win if we plan to rely on the right to stop being a monolith politically. The Republican party has been a monolithic roadblock towards meaningful federal climate policy for over 30 years. Republican voters have not shown any significant change to their voting preferences to sway their politicians to get better about climate issues.

                  We don't have 20 years for all the 50+ year olds that aren't going to be swayed to make climate a policy priority now when they haven't yet, to start to finally be replaced by enough Millennial and Zoomer voters (who regardless of political tribe are more motivated by climate policy) to become the majority of the US voting population to force the issue.

                  We don't need to sway public opinion. Public opinion is on the side of addressing climate change as a major priority. We need to try to get all the people on the right that agree with that to vote like it, and plan on fixing it without them since that hasn't worked yet and time isn't on anyone's side on this.

                  The second link I posted is of a video with two Conservative Environmentalists.
                  Did you listen to what they actually said though? Because they were very clear that the left isn't the problem. The problem is that the right ceded climate to the left, and as each generation grows increasingly more invested in making climate a policy priority, they're going to vote Democratic instead of Republican even if their general views are more conservative because fixing the environment now is more important than arguments about policies that aren't going to be issues if the globe warms too much.

                  They know the problem is on the right for not putting forward convincing climate positions for decades. Whether they're old enough to remember it, they're clearly cognizant of the Republican Revolution in 1994 that lead the the GOP switching on many formerly bipartisan issues to be hard line polarized topics. They clearly get that the biggest hurdle isn't lefty name calling, but conservative politicians refusing to break from the last 30 years of Republican political strategy of not letting anything be a bipartisan issue unless it means the Democrats doing things the Republican way (and even then, not if the Dems would get too much credit).

                  They're also two people that live in one of the most liberal parts of one of the most liberal states in the US. They're getting all the benefits of decades of fighting to pass strong environmental conservation laws via a Democratic majority as setting the baseline way they live.

                  As someone who lives in Canada, I acknowledge that there is a degree of right wing lunacy experienced by people in America that I am not affected by as directly and I would probably view them more as a monolith if I had to deal with that. I am merely advocating for the strategy I believe would work for the issue most important to me, having lost quite a bit of sleep thinking about it over the tears.
                  I don't think you really appreciate what it's like in conservative parts of the US.

                  I live in a rural very conservative part of my state. We have a lot of farms, and a lot of hunters. Environmentalism is actually really important to people around here because it's their livelihoods on the line.

                  I talk to a lot of people about this. They completely understand that companies dumping industrial waste into our water table is damaging their crops, their feed, their herds, their milk production, and even poisoning their kids. They don't want that to happen, they need clean water to survive. They completely understand we need proper wildlife management so there's deer to hunt because so many of them need to take a few deer every year to pad out their food budgets over winter. They can see that isn't going right. The forests are getting broken up so the deer herds can't sustain themselves properly, so the deer are moving away making it harder to catch enough meat to be food secure each year.

                  But any attempt to pivot towards politics and it all goes out the window. They are so conditioned to believe that the Democrats and "RINOs" are out to ruin the way of life out here in some nebulous future way, that they keep electing people that cut regulations on industrial waste dumping, cut funding the wilderness management, cut funding to toxic metal remediation (or never pass any in the first place), that pass laws so that home solar (which farmers can put up a decent amount of) can't sell to the grid, which is actively killing their way of life right now.

                  It's like trying to get a RPG player that hoards potions because they might need them later, to just use one now. They're so wrapped up in stockpiling 50 healing potions, that they're struggling to win what aren't supposed to be hard fights. Except it's not a game.

                  They don't need to be swayed that these are problems that are real and need fixing. They need to be convinced that they need to stop voting for the people making it worse (not just doing nothing, we're probably about to lose 5% more woodlands to a new forestry contract if next year's election goes the same as this one did locally), even though those people are "their" people. But they don't want to hear that. They don't want to believe their side is the side getting this wrong. So they listen to every last thing - true or not - that justifies never voting for the other side. So things keep getting worse. I have tried so many damned times. "You keep voting for this guy who takes money from the company that's constantly dumping into our river, and then votes to let them do even more of that, and you know it's killing our town, why not vote for the other guy that wants make sure our water is clean?" And it's all fear-mongering induced bullshit they've been fed their whole lives.

                  If managed to get through to five people a year, it feels like a miracle... but at that rate I'll be in my 600s before I'd convince enough locals to start being swing voters instead of partisan voters...

                  So yeah, I applaud everyone that's trying to catch flies with honey. But desperation calls for vinegar.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HorizonParty2021 View Post
                    In order to overcome the political influence of the fossil fuel industry, it is essential to include people from across the political spectrum and treat global warming a singular issue taking priority over other concerns. Failing that, the fossil fuel lobby will rely on the indignation of the people so insulted and excluded to enlist them on their side of the fight (or merely pacify them). But it just feels so much better to assume a position of moral superiority on everything than it does to include those one disagrees with.
                    The devil's in the details as they say and that group you linked to is a great example of that. Their climate stance can best be described as "one step forward, two steps backwards". Even in that video they are calling for bipartisanship and that climate change has to be dealt with but whenever they talk about Democrats they call their plans "onesided" and "unrealistic". Here's the description of their group on Influencewatch:

                    ACC states that its “limited government environmentalism” is “pro-market,” adding that “competition and free-enterprise are vital to effective environmental stewardship.” ACC also claims that “the climate is changing and modern science proves humans are playing a significant role”
                    But as to how conservative their economic view on climate-change measures is and how very reactionary they still are is shown by their stance on a carbon-tax.

                    An August 2018 article by ACC entitled “Let’s Stay Away from the Carbon Tax Debate” criticized a carbon tax proposed by centrist Republican then-U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), arguing it would “stifle economic growth and hinder the country’s progression towards energy independence.”

                    In August 2019, ACC chief operating officer Danielle Butcher criticized Curbelo’s proposed carbon tax in a Washington Examiner article entitled “Ditch the Carbon Tax and Embrace Less Divisive Climate Change Solutions.” She argued for the need to implement “immediate and tangible” strategies to reduce negative effects of climate change, adding that the debate over Curbelo’s carbon tax drowns out viable solutions. “Since its introduction in the 1990’s,” she wrote, “a price on carbon has gained little traction . . . a political consensus supporting carbon pricing has still not materialized, and it likely never will.” Butcher also recognized that carbon pricing, despite being branded as a “free market solution” to climate change by supporters, is nevertheless “the addition of regulation and extra costs in the market” and “a form of government intervention.”
                    But the kicker comes at the end:

                    Despite ACC’s criticism of carbon tax policies, an archived snapshot of the group’s website from September 2017 reveals a part of its platform calling for a “carbon pricing policy,” a euphemism for a carbon tax or similar policy. The text was later removed.
                    So a rightwing centrist calls for a modest climate-change policy, the very thing this group is supposedly campaigning for but being the reactionaries that they are, they immediately change their position to be against it because "government intervention is bad". I highly doubt there's any substantive climate-change policy this group would be in favor of. After all, what they're really advocating for is to cut regulations, give tax-breaks to corporations and then... let's just hope the free market whips up some sort of miracle, I guess. Besides the fact that the last 30 years have shown that simply trusting the free market to create solutions hasn't really worked out, the amount of changes now needed to stop climate change go beyond what corporations are capable of. The government has to intervene to push things in the right direction. And rightwingers like this group will still be the same roadblocks they were before. Now they just also believe in climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      and ​, I was intending to write a reply that addressed most or all of the points each of you put forward. Nothing was ignored. This is not possible right now. There is more I want to say on the subject of the OP and if I'm selective in the points I address, it has to do with the volume I'm capable of managing. I'm only one year into treatment for ADHD that was undetected for most of my life and mean to improve on things affected by that.


                      Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A Climate Damage Fund has been agreed upon to assist poor countries, as well as island nations in dealing with the impact of Global Warming.


                        Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's certainly a good thing; esp. considering the massive economic disparities between the highest polluting countries and the countries most effected by climate change in immediate terms.

                          But it's unfortunately yet another band-aid that will mitigate existing damage without stopping the cause.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The Climate Damage Fund is a good thing indeed but overall, I think it would be unwise to call COP27 a victory.

                            Let's put things into context. The Fund is a holdover from last year's COP in Glasgow. The reason the fund wasn't created last time were two holdouts who were against the idea. One of them was China and they had changed their mind this time around. But much of the discussions this time around were about convincing the other holdout who was against the idea: The USA.

                            The rationale was laid out by John Kerry early in the week. From the article The U.S. Is Presenting a Bad, Distracting Plan at U.N. Climate Talks:
                            As climate talks kicked off in Egypt this week and U.S. Democrats braced for a possible shellacking in Tuesday’s elections, climate envoy John Kerry floated a new initiative for helping countries finance emissions reductions. Hauling out a favorite line, Kerry told The Wall Street Journal that “no government in the world has enough money to affect the transition,” referencing the $1.3 trillion in annual funding developing countries have demanded richer ones furnish by 2030. “The entity that could help the most,” Kerry added, “is the private sector with the right structure.” And the structure Kerry wants to build involves enticing governments and corporations to buy so-called carbon credits, with the funds from those sales financing clean energy in developing countries. Details of the new framework are still scant, with more due to be announced tomorrow.

                            The private sector–led approach to climate policy hasn’t fared well over the last year. Voluntary private-sector pledges announced in 2021 have been watered down and criticized for claiming false progress toward net-zero emissions. Carbon offsets—a business this new U.S. plan seems poised to grow—have been especially controversial; numerous stories and studies over the past several years have suggested they may be worse than useless, plagued by accounting problems while essentially giving companies a green light to keep emitting. As the developing world’s demands for wealthy countries to deliver climate finance grow louder than ever at COP27, the market-driven plan Kerry and other U.S. officials are endorsing looks a lot like a distraction from the issue at hand.

                            “As it stands, based on the sparse details available, Kerry’s proposal does not appear to be a good idea,” said Khaled Diab of the Brussels-based watchdog group Carbon Markets Watch. This scheme, he added, “could potentially provide large corporations with a license to continue to pollute with impunity while making questionable net-zero claims. That means it could fling the doors wide open for large-scale greenwashing.”
                            As the article states the US-favored approach of a global market of carbon-offsets has the issue that most carbon-offset-programs are scams or do close to nothing in reducing emissions. John Oliver on his show Last Week Tonight also did a segment some time ago about how carbon-offsets are a scam. And the main-reason the US-plan didn't go anywhere in the discussions is probably because what the opposition to it demanded were heavier regulations and closer scrutiny of what carbon-offsets are supposed to achieve. And kinda hard to do the scam with stuff like that in place, of course.

                            But something was sacrificed at COP27: There was no agreement or commitment put forward to phase out fossil fuel. From the article COP27 delivers climate fund breakthrough at cost of progress on emissions:

                            The deal was widely lauded as a triumph for responding to the devastating impact that global warming is already having on vulnerable countries. But many countries said they felt pressured to give up on tougher commitments for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in order for the landmark deal on the loss and damage fund to go through.

                            Loss and Damage Fund

                            The deal for a loss and damage fund marked a diplomatic coup for small islands and other vulnerable nations in winning over the 27-nation European Union and the United States, which had long resisted the idea for fear that such a fund could open them to legal liability for historic emissions.

                            Those concerns were assuaged with language in the agreement calling for the funds to come from a variety of existing sources, including financial institutions, rather than relying on rich nations to pay in.

                            But it likely will be several years before the fund exists, with the agreement setting out only a roadmap for resolving lingering questions including who would oversee the fund, how the money would be dispersed – and to whom.

                            Fossil Fuel Fizzle

                            The price paid for a deal on the loss and damage fund was most evident in the language around emission reductions and reducing the use of polluting fossil fuels – known in the parlance of U.N. climate negotiations as "mitigation."

                            Last year's COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland, had focused on a theme of keeping the 1.5C goal alive – as scientists warn that warming beyond that threshold would see climate change spiral to extremes.

                            Countries were asked then to update their national climate targets before this year’s Egypt summit. Only a fraction of the nearly 200 parties did so.

                            While praising the loss and damage deal, many countries decried COP27’s failure to push mitigation further and said some countries were trying to roll back commitments made in the Glasgow Climate Pact.

                            "We had to fight relentlessly to hold the line of Glasgow," a visibly frustrated Alok Sharma, architect of the Glasgow deal, told the summit.

                            He listed off a number of ambition-boosting measures that were stymied in the negotiations for the final COP27 deal in Egypt: "Emissions peaking before 2025 as the science tells us is necessary? Not in this text. Clear follow-through on the phase down of coal? Not in this text. A clear commitment to phase out all fossil fuels? Not in this text."

                            On fossil fuels, the COP27 deal text largely repeats wording from Glasgow, calling up parties to accelerate "efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies."

                            Efforts to include a commitment to phase out, or at least phase down, all fossil fuels were thwarted.

                            "It is more than frustrating to see overdue steps on mitigation and the phase-out of fossil energies being stonewalled by a number of large emitters and oil producers," German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said.

                            The deal also included a reference to "low-emissions energy," raising concern among some that it opened the door to the growing use of natural gas - a fossil fuel that leads to both carbon dioxide and methane emissions.
                            Honestly personally I don't see any reason to celebrate what was achieved at COP27. In retrospect, people will probably describe it more with words like "Too little, too late", I fear.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I agree that this is basically a band-aide. As I've said in other threads, it is in the least developed countries that it would be easiest to build new green projects, including green housing. What the most developed countries have in abundance is high value real estate, much of which was built many decades ago and is difficult to modernize, in the way.


                              Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X