The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
(3 votes)
Results 2,801 to 2,808 of 2808

  1. Post
    Unsettled wrote:
    I'd prefer to avoid it, but thats a bad analogy isn't it, we've already been told we have the cancer. Is it unreasonable to ask about the risks of the operation / treatment? To ask the likelihood of the treatment being successful?
    Even on that basis, there's no guarantees at all. But opting for treatment usually trumps doing nothing.
    The goals set by governments to reduce emissions, even if met, will do nothing to prevent more intense climate change in the future.
    Well, not naturally occurring climate change, although that usually takes longer to happen. It'd be sensible to avoid accelerating things.
    It's more like diabetes, once you've got it and been told to change your diet to stop making it worse, and you keep the same diet, or even eat more crap because its depressing, and you're going to have to up the dosage, and get the daily injections, and your feet will fall off and you'll go blind, and die much younger than you should.
    Sounds like we're ****ed, ah well off to the bakery, got nothing to lose now.
    ^Human nature.
    Yeah probably a great analogy. Do we want to be conscious agents of change, or lazy fatalists, so proud in our own ego as to not challenge our status quo?

    Sounds like a few of us put ourselves into the latter camp. Or lie and make up excuses. Bludgers basically.

  2. Post
    bradc wrote:
    Well, not naturally occurring climate change, although that usually takes longer to happen. It'd be sensible to avoid accelerating things..
    Most of the western world is trending down and avoiding adding more by moving to carbon-neutral and more eco-friendly/economic transport anyhow. It is the developing countries that are increasing

    https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-o...-gas-emissions

    How do we stop them polluting and still develop? When they are extremely resistant to any changes they need to make, that will affect their growth to western levels of standards of living.

  3. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Most of the western world is trending down and avoiding adding more by moving to carbon-neutral and more eco-friendly/economic transport anyhow. It is the developing countries that are increasing

    https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-o...-gas-emissions

    How do we stop them polluting and still develop? When they are extremely resistant to any changes they need to make, that will affect their growth to western levels of standards of living.
    I'm always dubious of single country emissions. You can outsource your emissions by importing products. For example, the UK emissions are now at around 1890 levels, but if you account for imports it's less than half of that.

    The Paris Agreement was meant to solve your second question by having developed nations help fund clean tech in those developing nations. Of course I'm highly skeptical that enough will happen in time. I would not be at all surprised to see that by 2030 we are still struggling to drop global emissions. I mean, they are up again and projected to rise this year too. Just laughable really.

  4. Post
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...upport-systems
    Scientist Brad Lister returned to Puerto Rican rainforest after 35 years to find 98% of ground insects had vanished
    Erry day another 'holy fvck catastrophe!' yeah I might be a little fatalist about it. I don't think we're lazy so much as addicted to our lifestyles.

  5. Post
    Political agenda driving nonstop profit/economic growth is making us the frogs in the cooking pot. The new guy in Brazil just signed off on removing protection of the rainforest so companies can mine and farm. He’s trying to make Brazil great again.

  6. Post
    Unsettled wrote:
    Erry day another 'holy fvck catastrophe!' yeah I might be a little fatalist about it. I don't think we're lazy so much as addicted to our lifestyles.
    Well, that's usually what addiction is about, relinquishing conscious effort in favour of some sort of safety blanket.

  7. Post
    Unsettled wrote:
    Stop saying the science is settled. It clearly isn't. If predictions are wildly inaccurate, if models don't work, if we cannot determine how much influence humans are having on climate.
    That means we don't understand the problem. If we don't understand it, we are very unlikely to make a good solution too it. Do you trust the group that made the prediction that was so inaccurate to think of a solution?

    Personally, I don't think good intentions, and crossed fingers are good enough.
    User name checks out.

  8. Post
    Unsettled wrote:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...upport-systems

    Erry day another 'holy fvck catastrophe!' yeah I might be a little fatalist about it. I don't think we're lazy so much as addicted to our lifestyles.
    r/collapse