The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 3,926 to 3,950 of 3988

  1. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    FWIW, yesterday I took my son into town to be part of the protest in Welly, then had a meeting, then sat a climate change exam and got 100%.


    CODChimera wrote:
    The protests look like a bunch of people spent the weekend making catchy signs and then went for a walk, smiling and posing for photos to upload to instagram afterwards.

    And that's fine, I'm sure it's helpful *somehow* but we're way beyond that point imo.
    I think I kind of agree that we're past the point of protesting; we needed action... ooh, one or two decades ago. But then, look at the history on this topic in NZ: two decades ago, the farmers protested all the way to Parliament (with Bill English driving a tractor up the steps!) and smashed the attempted carbon tax. Our Governments have seemed to listen in the past. Let's hope they react.

    In terms of escalation, we've started with schoolkids going on strike -- not just protest, strike. Now, we've got adults joining them. The carrot and the stick are there: 170k in NZ stood up and said "we'll vote for change", while also saying "we're happy to ding the economy unless you listen". 170k have also met their neighbours, joined mailing lists and signalled to their friends that it's OK to join in. It's likely that this will grow, not shrink.

    KiwiTT wrote:
    My comment was directed at Climate Change Deniers - not anyone in this thread.
    It's all good man .

  2. Post
    tfw still no general strike in sight

  3. Post
    frio wrote:
    I wanted to leave this a day before replying, because... it seems a bit OTT? When most people in this thread seem to post and agree that individual action is pointless, and the only thing that will drive genuine, actual change is political -- then it genuinely is disappointing that more aren't out there joining in with a simple simple method of direct political participation. If nothing else, it was a nice day for a walk .
    Those people are stupid. Do they not realize that climate change is the solution - not the problem?

  4. Post
    frio wrote:
    The reality is that the future you've described, one where some degree of change is locked in, will significantly impact billions. Our privilege in NZ is that some of that might be less visceral, but we're not going to lock in any moderate scenario without immediate action, here and abroad. The hope is that we can begin locking in that action with peaceful protests.

    Speaking to many of the kids yesterday, the polarisation you mention isn't the overriding sentiment; it's the exasperation. The science is clear. We've had decades of inaction. They're rightfully over it.

    It seems like cognitive dissonance with Ed. He lays out this future. One of serious disruption. People displaced by constant floods and drought. An entire shift of agriculture. Global desertification. And that doesn't even begin to mention the hundreds of millions predicted to be displaced globally by 2050. Or ocean acidification. Or loss of fresh water for those reliant on glacial/snow melt. Or increased air pollution due to forest/bush fires. I mean, I could go on.

    This is the stuff that bring civilization's to their tipping points. Encourages war. Famine. Great depression. Etc...

    But then he's like, "I'm sure my kids will thrive".



    We are discussing changing the climate of an entire planet and somehow expecting it to be just an inconvenience. Jesus wept.

    EDIT: Just so you can see this isn't limited to children with limited understanding. Climate scientists living with grief.

    Also to note:

    I mean, read the NIWA predictions for NZ: https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/c...ivar/scenarios
    This is based on the IPCC AR5 report, which is significantly out-dated now. You can certainly expect more dire predictions when the new science is taken into account. Perhaps after AR6.
    Last edited by s0cks; 30th September 2019 at 12:03 pm.

  5. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Those people are stupid.
    people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

  6. Post
    frio wrote:
    I wanted to leave this a day before replying, because... it seems a bit OTT? When most people in this thread seem to post and agree that individual action is pointless, and the only thing that will drive genuine, actual change is political -- then it genuinely is disappointing that more aren't out there joining in with a simple simple method of direct political participation. If nothing else, it was a nice day for a walk .
    Yeah, sorry man, was being more acerbic than I needed to be, I was responding to my perception of your post as being smug and self-congratulator, and I assumed it was towards anyone who was posting about the dangers of global warming and didn't join you, hence my over-zealousness. But you and KiwiTT have talked it through. so sweet as. So, sorry mate, I reacted emotionally based on my initial erroneous perception.

    frio wrote:
    Is it that you think protest isn't effective?
    See above on this, I was focusing on the tone I had perceived more than the effectiveness of protest.

    frio wrote:
    The reality is that the future you've described, one where some degree of change is locked in, will significantly impact billions. Our privilege in NZ is that some of that might be less visceral, but we're not going to lock in any moderate scenario without immediate action, here and abroad. The hope is that we can begin locking in that action with peaceful protests.
    Don't disagree at all.

    s0cks wrote:
    It seems like cognitive dissonance with Ed. He lays out this future. One of serious disruption. People displaced by constant floods and drought. An entire shift of agriculture. Global desertification. And that doesn't even begin to mention the hundreds of millions predicted to be displaced globally by 2050. Or ocean acidification. Or loss of fresh water for those reliant on glacial/snow melt. Or increased air pollution due to forest/bush fires. I mean, I could go on.

    This is the stuff that bring civilization's to their tipping points. Encourages war. Famine. Great depression. Etc...

    But then he's like, "I'm sure my kids will thrive".



    We are discussing changing the climate of an entire planet and somehow expecting it to be just an inconvenience. Jesus wept.
    Firstly, interested in your point that the NIWA projections are based on old science, and that the new science will make things more dire. Do you have any further readings on that? What did the old science miss?

    Secondly, yep, it'll disrupt significant amounts of people. But I return to my point that humanity has faced events of a similarly large scale in the past. Black Plague, WW2, Great Depression, collapse of the Roman Empire, the expansion of the Mongol Empire (which funnily enough, induced a bit of climate change itself) the population bottleneck of 10,000 individuals that Mitochondrial Eve belonged to.

    As an aside, WRT to ocean acidification and calcification - earth has oscillated between aragonite seas and calcite seas over millennia, life will continue. It may not be life we're used to, but the Earth will always survive us. Personally I'm more worried about changes in thermohaline circulation. Although, another fun fact, large influxes of fresh water from prehistoric Lake Agassiz probably caused the Younger Dryas, so hey, who knows what's going to happen.

    I think you and I share different beliefs in the capacity of humanity as a species to overcome. I also think we disagree on the degree of disruption. To me, it feels like you're picturing the most extreme predictions as likely, whereas I think we're going to land somewhere in the middle. Structural changes are starting to happen, too late to avoid all impacts, but not too late to avoid the worst.

    And yes, I believe my children will thrive because they're lucky enough to have been born in a country raised above sea level by a subducting plate, that is located in a temperate zone, that is self-sustainable in terms the basics of life. And so far, I've not been privy to any evidence that climate change will dramatically impact those aspects of our nation (but as I said, open to new information) - we'll still have fresh water, we'll still have arable land.

    And I believe my children will thrive because a) they're humans and humans are remarkably resourceful and adaptable and b) because I've spent their entire lives instilling into them values that will hopefully help them thrive in the face of any and all adversity they face. Or at the very least, to not give up, and to hope, and to work for that hope.

    Oh, and I've also taught them how to raid the wasteland for petrol, and to avoid anyone looking suspiciously like Mel Gibson
    Last edited by Edward Diego; 30th September 2019 at 11:52 pm.

  7. Post
    sOcks, for example: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/how-...limate-crisis/

    Shane Jones may be the hero we need after all.

  8. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Secondly, yep, it'll disrupt significant amounts of people. But I return to my point that humanity has faced events of a similarly large scale in the past. Black Plague, WW2, Great Depression, collapse of the Roman Empire, the expansion of the Mongol Empire (which funnily enough, induced a bit of climate change itself) the population bottleneck of 10,000 individuals that Mitochondrial Eve belonged to.

    As an aside, WRT to ocean acidification and calcification - earth has oscillated between aragonite seas and calcite seas over millennia, life will continue. It may not be life we're used to, but the Earth will always survive us. Personally I'm more worried about changes in thermohaline circulation. Although, another fun fact, large influxes of fresh water from prehistoric Lake Agassiz probably caused the Younger Dryas, so hey, who knows what's going to happen.

    I think you and I share different beliefs in the capacity of humanity as a species to overcome. I also think we disagree on the degree of disruption. To me, it feels like you're picturing the most extreme predictions as likely, whereas I think we're going to land somewhere in the middle. Structural changes are starting to happen, too late to avoid all impacts, but not too late to avoid the worst.
    Take a look at this graphic for the forecast of the world by 2100 or so



    Have a think about where the populations and Nations are. As you say humans are adaptable, true, but it wont be nice and friendly, it will be downright greedy and violent as we transition to new climate state.

  9. Post
    i think you're going down rabbit holes that have validity but aren't pragmatic.

    living these ideas is going to bring you down big time,

  10. Post
    New investigative report out today found records of over 3,700 current ships in operation (including transport, cargo and cruise ships) use cheat devices to bypass emissions standards. The standards say they must not pollute into the atmosphere - so the cheat devices capture the pollution and dump them into the sea, filling the seas with carbon and heavy metals.

    For the average person - another thing you can all start doing right now - only buy made in new zealand products. If it has been imported don't buy it!

  11. Post
    SirGrim wrote:
    For the average person - another thing you can all start doing right now - only buy made in new zealand products. If it has been imported don't buy it!
    Wont help with most of our consumer goods now being made overseas, in places like China, etc.

    Edit: Finished the Introduction to the Climate Change course.
    https://sdgacademy.org/course/climat...global-impact/

    I'll let that sink in before getting into the next chapters. I'd highly recommend most people should understand this stuff, to get a handle on the more complex issues involved in the Climate Change debate
    Last edited by KiwiTT; 1st October 2019 at 3:20 pm.

  12. Post
    Watch out


  13. Post

  14. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Wont help with most of our consumer goods now being made overseas, in places like China, etc.
    It's not so much it's made in China, the issue is serviceability.

  15. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Firstly, interested in your point that the NIWA projections are based on old science, and that the new science will make things more dire. Do you have any further readings on that? What did the old science miss?
    It missed a number of feedback loops (like permafrost), and appears to have significantly underestimated climate sensitivity and sea level rise. Remember AR5 is from 2014, and the science within it is at least 1 year older than that. The science has come a long way in that time, and it is only bad news.

    Secondly, yep, it'll disrupt significant amounts of people. But I return to my point that humanity has faced events of a similarly large scale in the past. Black Plague, WW2, Great Depression, collapse of the Roman Empire, the expansion of the Mongol Empire (which funnily enough, induced a bit of climate change itself) the population bottleneck of 10,000 individuals that Mitochondrial Eve belonged to.
    None of those events are something I would expect us to go through and thrive. Many of us would probably perish. They are all terrible, and climate change is as bad, if not potentially worse.

    I think you and I share different beliefs in the capacity of humanity as a species to overcome. I also think we disagree on the degree of disruption. To me, it feels like you're picturing the most extreme predictions as likely, whereas I think we're going to land somewhere in the middle. Structural changes are starting to happen, too late to avoid all impacts, but not too late to avoid the worst.
    What is the middle? The future very much depends on our ability to cut and stop emissions. So far, emissions are growing, and not expected to peak for at least another 10 years. So far we are trending RCP8.5. So yeah, I'm basing my future outlook on current trends. I will happily, more than happily in fact - joyfully, revise my outlook if it looks like we can start bringing down emissions on target. But until then I don't think I am being unreasonable.

    Also, you are moving the goalpost. My concern is not whether humanity as a species can overcome climate change. Tbh, I don't care at all about that. What concerns me is the ability for modern civilisation to cope, because for all intents and purposes, that is what most of us rely on to live.

    And yes, I believe my children will thrive because they're lucky enough to have been born in a country raised above sea level by a subducting plate, that is located in a temperate zone, that is self-sustainable in terms the basics of life. And so far, I've not been privy to any evidence that climate change will dramatically impact those aspects of our nation (but as I said, open to new information) - we'll still have fresh water, we'll still have arable land.
    Yes but NZ is still a part of global civilisation. We may be spared more than others in regards to climate, but that doesn't mean we won't have a complete collapse of the modern economy if the rest of the world goes under too. I understand this is the best place to live, but it is not immune. If we can't rely on regular imports we're still in for a rude awakening, and possibly still many thousands who will be forced out by sea level rise & flooding.

    And I believe my children will thrive because a) they're humans and humans are remarkably resourceful and adaptable and b) because I've spent their entire lives instilling into them values that will hopefully help them thrive in the face of any and all adversity they face. Or at the very least, to not give up, and to hope, and to work for that hope.
    That sound like surviving, not thriving.

    sOcks, for example: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/how-...limate-crisis/

    Shane Jones may be the hero we need after all.
    Even if we managed to pull off this amazing feat of planting billions of trees and somehow stop the massive rate of deforestation in our current old-growth forests, we would still need to cut our emissions to zero. There are no easy solutions any more, especially ones compatible with our infinite growth economic model.

  16. Post
    Humans generate 2.5Billion tons of CO2 every year from just breathing.

    ...just saying.

  17. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Humans generate 2.5Billion tons of CO2 every year from just breathing.

    ...just saying.
    1 child policy - let's get this planet back to 3 billion people.

  18. Post


    Glad we live in the land of the long white cloud. However the fact that we get droughts from time to time is concerning, as will they be more frequent under climate change scenarios for NZ. What gives me hope is as the Earth warms, there will be more evaporation of the oceans (including the Tasman Sea), and that may fall on New Zealand.

    gneiss signal: do we have any localised forecasts for these effects.

  19. Post
    When you get to the end of the course you are doing you’ll see that the models predict that even in some areas where there will be increased rainfall, there will be increased drought too. This is due to warmer soil and more evaporation. So even with more rain, we will likely see smaller crop yields and increased drought times.

    Also, lol at the disaster video.

  20. Post
    The course is great ... I am enjoying the readings as well.

  21. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    [video=youtube;lP0UxFfDmu0]
    gneiss signal: do we have any localised forecasts for these effects.
    From what I've seen, slightly more rain on the west coast, and significantly less rain on the east coast. Applies to both islands.

  22. Post
    scholar wrote:
    From what I've seen, slightly more rain on the west coast, and significantly less rain on the east coast. Applies to both islands.
    We still don’t know if we will get stronger or weaker El Niņo or La Niņa in the future. Those outcomes will determine most of those effects in NZ.

  23. Post
    What Uni/Tech level course should I do that best fits climate change studies?

  24. Post
    Depends what you have done before and if any credits can count. Depends on the uni too. In Welly, you could do a combo of earth science and conservation, heading into climate studies at masters level. You could also go the pure physics/maths/meteorology route at Vic and get into atmospheric sciences that way.

  25. Post
    Right so about 5 years of study then.