Climate change: who do you think is responsible and who do you trust to fix it

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

I'm just asking how people view this, for example when an incredibly small number of the world's companies are responsible for the majority of carbon emissions but we simultaneously have relied on them both through work and consumer habits, should we say changing consumption habits isn't going to make a dent, or do you believe those companies wouldn't exist if we changed our habits enough? I take the side of capitalists ultimately being responsible, especially as infrastructure built by the state is usually influenced by those with the most wealth and that infrastructure has encouraged a high carbon emission lifestyle(for example lack of public transport in spite of how monopolies and current supply chains lead to centralised workplaces which most people don't live within walking distance of). I also believe western colonialism has a large role: when businesses rely on unethical practices and poverty wages in their outsourced employees in the third world, it's unlikely that they won't hinder the countries they outsource to in building the sort of infrastructure which helps people deal with natural disasters, put in place better systems for disabled and ill people to recover(which in the long run harms everyone, if we think of the threat of new dangerous viruses etc being uncovered/evolving with rising temperatures).

[Evren]

The problem with my viewpoint is that i don't trust anyone to fix it. I think it will just get worse until we see the extremely obvious terrible effects and then people will want to fix it and it'll be too late. But I've been in a nihilistic mood lately so feel free to ignore me. 

[Homer]

Neither do I think that there's the one instance who's responsible, nor could I think of anyone I'd trust. We're well past the point where "fixing" is an option (if it ever was) - it's all about coping and adjusting IMO.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

6 minutes ago, Homer said:

Neither do I think that there's the one instance who's responsible, nor could I think of anyone I'd trust. We're well past the point where "fixing" is an option (if it ever was) - it's all about coping and adjusting IMO.

This.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Neither do I think that there's the one instance who's responsible, nor could I think of anyone I'd trust. We're well past the point where "fixing" is an option (if it ever was) - it's all about coping and adjusting IMO.

Well from what I've heard, some parts of coping and adjusting will literally be impossible if we don't also work to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere down to pre industrial levels. Because in the long term some of the chains it sets off won't be things which we can adjust to. I think we need to ditch pessimism as well, though I'm sympathetic to it.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

BirthStrikers: meet the women who refuse to have children until climate change ends

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

@chandrakirti that's a beautiful article! So good that these people are recognising that such individual choices won't fix things, especially considering how many people go from worries about climate change to thinking about global population increases to pure misanthropy - though I would argue that population density is a problem because industrialised society has become so reliant on incredibly centralised cities which expect people to own cars, as well as increasing our consumption while worsening health with all the stress. I kind of wimped out of extinction rebellion simply because I came to regret being so heavily involved(didn't think I was qualified to be in the positions they gave me) and was unsure of some of their tactics, but am planning to get back involved soon.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Oh I joined my local extinction rebellion and would be 100% active, but my local branch relies solely on Facebook for organising and I don't use Facebook!😆

[andreas1033]

I think climate change is just weather. Weather changes, and is always dynamic.

 

The people whom tried to con the public with global warming, were using solar cycles to exploit the highs to con the public, whom for some reason, cannot remember last years weather, let alone the weather 20 years ago in there life.

 

Climate change for me, is just sun cycles, mixed with earth cycles, and mankind, has no idea what variables go into these cycles, to dictate the foundations of how the earth will behave in terms of weather and climate in the future.

 

So i think there is no such thing as manmade global warming.

 

I do think, humans massively pollute planet earth, mainly its water supply, and this is the only reason for dwindling numbers of species, they are trying to sell people as climate change.

 

People whom try and sell climate change, are exploiting the publics ignorance, in terms of suns and earths cycles. How these interact humans will never know, or understand.

 

Its good that you should care about what your doing to the earth, but deal with what your really doing, not what humans are not to blame for.

 

The human factor in all this, is pollution, mainly water supply of earth.

 

For me, there is no such thing as manmade global warming. Climate change is just weather, and they are exploiting peoples ignorance.

 

Humans are though polluting massively, and this is mainly responsible for damage being done to nature, due to polluting the water supply of earth.

 

Remember whether humans existed or not, earth would have cycles, and the sun would have cycles. How they interact with those cycles, humans will never truly understand.

[Homer]

That's pretty much the only thing that could actually make a difference: Eradicate Mankind.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

56 minutes ago, andreas1033 said:

I think climate change is just weather. Weather changes, and is always dynamic.

 

The people whom tried to con the public with global warming, were using solar cycles to exploit the highs to con the public, whom for some reason, cannot remember last years weather, let alone the weather 20 years ago in there life.

 

Climate change for me, is just sun cycles, mixed with earth cycles, and mankind, has no idea what variables go into these cycles, to dictate the foundations of how the earth will behave in terms of weather and climate in the future.

 

So i think there is no such thing as manmade global warming.

 

I do think, humans massively pollute planet earth, mainly its water supply, and this is the only reason for dwindling numbers of species, they are trying to sell people as climate change.

 

People whom try and sell climate change, are exploiting the publics ignorance, in terms of suns and earths cycles. How these interact humans will never know, or understand.

 

Its good that you should care about what your doing to the earth, but deal with what your really doing, not what humans are not to blame for.

 

The human factor in all this, is pollution, mainly water supply of earth.

 

For me, there is no such thing as manmade global warming. Climate change is just weather, and they are exploiting peoples ignorance.

 

Humans are though polluting massively, and this is mainly responsible for damage being done to nature, due to polluting the water supply of earth.

 

Remember whether humans existed or not, earth would have cycles, and the sun would have cycles. How they interact with those cycles, humans will never truly understand.

I know this is hot box, but considering this thread starts by assuming climate change is real and makes clear that I'm worried about it, I don't understand why you would comment on it and I have no interest in arguing. It derails from the topic.

[andreas1033]

3 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

I know this is hot box, but considering this thread starts by assuming climate change is real and makes clear that I'm worried about it, I don't understand why you would comment on it and I have no interest in arguing. It derails from the topic.

I am not trying to derail your thread.

 

I gave my opinion on it. If you do not agree fine, but thats my opinion. I was only giving my opinion on it, and not trying to derail your thread.

[Skycaptain]

Thing is, there's multiple reasons for climate change. Human activities are one of them, primarily deforestation, urbanisation and burning fuels. There is also a natural warming cycle as the earth is moving out of a period of cold climate. This is making the effect of human activities more marked. 

What can be done?. Realistically probably nothing significant. Deforestation is probably irreversible unless you remove agricultural land for forests, and without removing 90% of humanity that won't happen. You can't disinvent cities. Even with massive investment we cannot generate enough renewable energy fast enough. 

[Phie]

I have pretty much accepted that there's no way to fix this, we can probably only try to slow it down and adapt and I think the key to that (as with so many other issues) is education, research and open discussions, and then we have to actually apply our knowledge (the sad thing is that there is a lot of knowledge already, but either too many people don't understand it and therefore fight it or research on actual technology that could help is massively underfunded or people are too peoccupied with other things etc)

I guess in the end, we're all responsible to some degree, and pointing fingers is most likely not going to help, but a few people recognizing all of that isn't going to make a big change if there are still so many companies, countries and people who just don't care (or, in the case of people: don't know better or don't have different options)

I mean, I still think we should try to do whatever we can, but I'm not overly optimistic to be honest

[Sally]

Adaptation is the only possibility left.  You cannot "fix" melting glaciers.  

[daveb]

Maybe we can't "fix" it (although I'm not sure we have reached the point of no return yet; some estimates say we still have time - the question is do we have the will), but we will make it worse if we don't make changes. Maybe few people my age or older will live long enough to see how much worse it can get, but I feel bad for everyone else (and many other living beings). We aren't doing a very good job of leaving things in better shape than we got it.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

I know we can't disinvent cities @Skycaptain, but if you look in the jungles of central America it's earth to see what happens when the population declines.

There was a report recently about how an episode of global cooling occurred in conjunction with a rapid decline in the populations of tribes in that area.

When the conquistadors explored central America.

[Sally]

Our native egoistic pride in our technological achievements has not allowed us to see that the changes that have been made are irrevocable.   We seem to be stuck in the bargaining stage: if we just buy an electric car  instead of a gas-burning car, or if a country just commits to cutting its emissions by 25% in the next 10 years, everything will stay as it is.  Every article produced by reputable scientific organizations says that the process is speeding up.  One organization said we have 12 years; most said that's not the case.  My son fishes in Alaska.  He sees what is happening.  Everyone whose eyes and minds are open sees what's happening.   And you and I, @daveb, will definitely see how much worse it can get.  This isn't a matter of optimism or pessimism; it's a matter of reality.  We can't fix it; we must adapt to it.  

[Guest]

I'll be long dead before the next extinction event. 

 

This can't be fixed. Our natural resources are slowly fading, and things won't be done until its affecting you directly. Many are of that mentality, which makes it hard to adopt a change in ways of living. 

 

At that point, it's too late. 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I'll be long dead before the next extinction event. 

 

This can't be fixed. Our natural resources are slowly fading, and things won't be done until its affecting you directly. Many are of that mentality, which makes it hard to adopt a change in ways of living. 

 

At that point, it's too late. 

It's worth considering how large systemic change often occurs quicker than can be predicted(think of the French, Russian revolutions as an example, the sudden changes made from feudalism to capitalism, from pre industrial to industrial society) as to what is or isn't possible. As much as your conviction that it's too late comes from what you say is an inevitability in society, I would say our lifespans also stop us from understanding how systemic change occurs. I'm very much an optimist in my views of what humans are capable of, despite being a pessimist in most other manners.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

As much as your conviction that it's too late comes from what you say is an inevitability in society

Until emissions are controlled strictly around the globe, I don't see any changes happening. 

 

It's cheaper to use gas powered cars.

We will need to make it cheaper to use cleaner resources, globally. 

 

I mean, I have gone to cities where you can feel the pollution due to how bad that it is. 

 

I mean, I was coughing out black soot and blowing it out of my nose for weeks, after visiting one of the most polluted cities within a third world country. 

 

You saw how bad conditions were in factories in this part of the world. 

 

It's a supply to a growing appetite in the western world, for consumer goods. 

 

Sure, things always change. I am stating that based on the status quo, I don't see any game breaking technologies that would stop this anytime soon. 

 

It would take a significant amount of time for cleaner measures to be adopted. 

[Guest]

The poorer countries won't make drastic changes, until they don't have a choice. 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

33 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The poorer countries won't make drastic changes, until they don't have a choice. 

Some of the poorest countries are putting in a much better effort than countries like my own, the UK. And considering we have money for the richest to waste on investments and empty second homes, how about we invest in those poor countries considering a lot of the time it's our governments which were responsible for their poverty?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/climate-change-aid-poor-nations-paris-cop21-oxfam

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

18 hours ago, Sally said:

Adaptation is the only possibility left.  You cannot "fix" melting glaciers.  

Of course not. My wording may have said "fix it" but by now I'm sure you know I've never seen that as some sort of maintenance of the status quo. I expect society and the environment will be dramatically changed, but I want to do everything in my power to help prevent millions of people dying. Your comment about electric cars speaks to my heart because I hate that people have accepted our society being structured around cars and such in the first place. I think the only people who society would inevitably require to use such technology on a daily basis would be those involved in transporting necessary types of products and supply to businesses which actually create something useful, and people who need them, as well as a lot of disabled people. The rest of us would be able to walk and use more efficient shared transport, if society weren't structured around a few large cities in which everyone works, shops and has access to fun things to do. If some people didn't have to drive more than 10 minutes just to buy fruit and vegetables.

 

I believe people have seen deaths due to climate change in a very black and white way: either no one is going to die because of it, or the entire species goes extinct. I seriously doubt that humanity has no alternative to complete extinction right now, and also see that my country isn't as badly affected in its weather and environment as others. So from that, it becomes a question of doing what I can to prevent other people from dying, and knowing that I will probably not see the worst effects of climate change in my area. It doesn't change my belief that millions or even billions of people are within our ability to save, and will probably save themselves if we in countries which are less affected just don't fuck things up.

[Epitaph]

Everybody's responsible. The companies are the ones churning out the crap, yah, but we're the ones choosing to buy said crap and keep the wheel turning. If you want to know how to stop, (keep in mind I only said stop, not reverse) current climate change, we' have to shut down everything that emits something. Cars, power plants, everything.

 

That's what'd take to just stop the progress of it alone.Truth is, nobody's got the organization skills or the constitution to pull that off. Nobody's hands are clean and so therefore the only option on the table now is live with the consequences.

 

This planet's systems are naturally self regulating. In a million years time, or longer, long after we're gone, things will stabilize and sort themselves into some semblance of balance.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

how about we invest in those poor countries

Depending on the country, that could be a very bad idea if the country at hand is known for government corruption. 

[uhtred]

I think human caused CO2 emissions are having a significant effect on climate and that the effect will overall be negative for people by most measures - though not the end of the world.   The emissions are closely tied with fossil fuel use which until recently was closely tied to standard of living.  As poor countries (like China) become wealthy, their emissions go up. 

 

I don't care who is "responsible", only about what can be done.  I think it is difficult to fight economic pressure - especially since the fight needs to be global, and last for centuries. Instead I think efforts should concentrate on making low carbon energy sources less expensive / more convenient than fossil fuels. Then people will no more use fossil fuels than they now use horse drawn carriages.  So research is key (IMHO).

 

A lot of progress has been made - already solar and wind are cost competitive in many situations.  It makes sense - no fuel. I think regulations can make a difference in the short term, but in the long term we need better technology, and we are getting it

 

 I think our biggest outstanding problems now are energy storage and transportation to make solar and wind practical on very large scales. Fortunately people are working on those.

 

 

 

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

I'm just hoping that what's left of the animal world can hang in in there till there's a chance of regeneration.

 

Haven't seen one toad or frog this year yet and they were abundant when I came to the place 4 years ago.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

17 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Depending on the country, that could be a very bad idea if the country at hand is known for government corruption. 

There's a really simple solution to that: give reparations to the people not the government of the country. Especially given how much of those reparations should also be to do with infrastructure etc. Of course nothing is simple when thinking of one country which historically messed up another offering to help but not doing it via government, but I imagine these countries would accept it if there were new checks made to stop them from interfering in the politics of countries for the sake of trade.

[Guest]

On 3/14/2019 at 9:43 AM, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

There's a really simple solution to that: give reparations to the people not the government of the country.

And you would do this, without violating the sovereignty of that country, how?

 

It would be like me going over to your house, and telling you that we will redecorate it in the colors I see fit. 

 

Either you would show me to the door, call the police or likely both. 

 

The country I draw roots from, had millions sent to them in aid from the US alone. 

 

Pennies went to the residents. 

 

Villages for show were built to show "progress", but none of it is benefiting the people.  

 

Very hard to counter poverty. Harder, for corruption, which go hand in hand. 

 

You can't just march into a country and expect no fight while attempting to impose your governance within it.