Do you think it is a problem but the majority doesn't care?
Do you think it is too late to stop drastic change?
Climate Change
Posts
Total:
37
people won't care until they see a real impact on their lives. that's how society often does things.... they wait until it's boiling over before doing anything.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Anything more positive? :(people won't care until they see a real impact on their lives. that's how society often does things.... they wait until it's boiling over before doing anything.
I like to think it will make people think twice about building on a flood plain before they do it anyway
Do you think it is a problem but the majority doesn't care?
Climate change is a problem, and the majority of people care about the climate changing
Do you think it is too late to stop drastic change?
If you are referring to reduction in CO2 emissions, I feel as though its probably too late to reduce them. There are more pressing issues around the world, and they will continue to rise.
-->
@Snoopy
the majority of people care about the climate changing
Stats?
If you are referring to reduction in CO2 emissions, I feel as though its probably too late to reduce them. There are more pressing issues around the world, and they will continue to rise.
Oke.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Humanity induced or otherwise, climate change is nonetheless a natural phenomenon, and any actions that might be taken to address the issue, are likewise.
A reduction in the human population by a few billion, would be a good solution the Earth's problems. So maybe that will be the natural answer to the natural problem.
I don't know for certain whether climate change is real or not, if it's actually a threat or not, or if it's becoming one. I do think that we can do basic things like keeping out environment clean, avoid littering as much as possible, throw out garbage, avoiding hoarding, and embrace minimalism. A clean environment would be the answer to stop climate change. We don't need fancy stuff like "Green New Deal" to fix our world. We just need to clean up more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7rewjFNiys
-->
@Christen
Litter is not the issue. Litter is a cosmetic problem.
Climatic conditions have changed, because of gaseous emissions into the Earth's atmosphere which have altered how the atmosphere interacts with solar radiation. An increase in overall atmospheric temperature is bound to have a certain effect on climate.
Tidying up your backyard is not going to have any effect on climate. It will just look a bit nicer perhaps.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Climate change is natural. We have no control over it.
-->
@janesix
So when CO2 is put into the atmosphere because of man-made machines like what fossil fuels power stations. That has no impact on the climate?Climate change is natural. We have no control over it.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nothing that can't be fixed by the Earth and the Sun.
-->
@janesix
By fixing do you mean burning you alive?Nothing that can't be fixed by the Earth and the Sun.
By fixing do you mean the damaged ozone layer that is not repairing?
saw a map that shows green (plants growing) near deserts, CO2 is used by plants to grow and produce oxygen so there's that, tbh I don't care, nothing will happen in my life time or my children's, why anyone would care what happens after they are gone makes no sense imo, it will all end sometime, so long as you end first wgaf?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It's a problem but it's something we're going to have to live with. People want to live comfortable lives, and we're not going to give that up no matter what. Green hardliners are not more moral than everyone else because they act on their desires to live comfortably as everyone else does, which results in carbon emissions. They might be willing to pay a little extra to lower their carbon footprint, but overall it's a drop in the bucket, and it's also a luxury that many lower-class Americans couldn't afford.
Solar and wind energy are faced with the problems of storage and slow capture, which makes them an unsuitable replacement for conventional fuels on an industrial scale with current technologies. A full transition would cost tens of trillions of dollars and devastate the economy, undoing a whole decade or two of GDP growth (if not more). The new jobs created by this transition would not be enough to justify its enormous cost, and even after the transition was finished we'd be faced with chronic energy shortages (or at least compared to the energy we're able to use daily as of the present).
The only way forward is a slow transition, which'll be completed by the end of the century. It entails gradual phasing in of stricter emissions and waste standards. Trump's probably going in the wrong direction by deregulating dirty industries to the extent that he has, and perhaps in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, though I don't know how tolerable the provisions of that agreement were.
Green hardliners are not more moral than everyone else because they act on their desires to live comfortably as everyone else does, which results in carbon emissions. They might be willing to pay a little extra to lower their carbon footprint, but overall it's a drop in the bucket, and it's also a luxury that many lower-class Americans couldn't afford.
How are they not more moral?
Is reducing the footprint not a good thing to do?
Solar and wind energy are faced with the problems of storage and slow capture, which makes them an unsuitable replacement for conventional fuels on an industrial scale with current technologies. A full transition would cost tens of trillions of dollars and devastate the economy, undoing a whole decade or two of GDP growth (if not more). The new jobs created by this transition would not be enough to justify its enormous cost, and even after the transition was finished we'd be faced with chronic energy shortages (or at least compared to the energy we're able to use daily as of the present).
I am personally for nuclear energy,
The only way forward is a slow transition, which'll be completed by the end of the century. It entails gradual phasing in of stricter emissions and waste standards. Trump's probably going in the wrong direction by deregulating dirty industries to the extent that he has, and perhaps in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, though I don't know how tolerable the provisions of that agreement were.
By that stuff would be worse. I already dislike the heat. I can't imagine what it would be like in a couple of years from now.
For example, what was it Democrats proposed earlier this year? A 90 trillion dollar Green New Deal? Let's say this was a plan that covered the next 30 years. That'd amount to an additional 3 trillion in tax revenue every year, or more than 14℅ of the existing economy (that's not to say 14℅ the economy would be taxed, but rather existing taxes plus another 14% of the economy). How many small businesses are just barely getting by right now? How many of them would be forced to shut their doors for good? 80-90℅, maybe? How much of the tax burden would be passed on to the American consumer?
Or would the government be forced to take on debt? The national debt's already larger than our whole economy. What would it do in that case? Double? Triple? All while the economy contracts? How long before the United States went bankrupt, nobody would loan us anymore, and all our creditors demanded their money back?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How are they not more moral?Is reducing the footprint not a good thing to do?
Can you buy morality, though? If people have to resort to cannibalism because food is extremely scarce, and you're a rich guy who doesn't have to because you can afford to buy actual food, are you actually a better person? Likewise, if you're rich enough to just buy an electric car and a million dollar all-green home, are you more moral than a working-class Joe who couldn't afford any of that and so has to live with more dirty options?
By that stuff would be worse. I already dislike the heat. I can't imagine what it would be like in a couple of years from now.
Nobody wants the planet to get hotter. But is preventing such an outcome worth the astonishing cost that it would require us all to pay?
There are far too many disagreements on climate change for us to figure out exactly whether or not it is a serious threat and/or what we can do about it.
People disagree on what exactly is causing climate change. One side says humans cause it, but the other side says it's existed for centuries.
People disagree on whether or not evidence for it actually exists. One side says there is scientific evidence for it, but the other side refutes it and says it's false/inaccurate.
People disagree on what to do about it. I say we need to just clean up more, and zedvictor4 apparently doesn't like the idea of cleaning up.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If man is natural, then man made machines must also be natural. Ergo, climate change is natural.
Any resolutions and actions implemented in order to address a perceived human problem are natural too.
Choosing to ignore is also natural.
If the Earth becomes uninhabitable as a result of our actions, then that is what will happen. It won't be a problem if there is no one is here to think about it. The Earth will simply keep spinning and orbiting until such time's, when it will be consumed by the Sun.
In fact everything is natural.
Unnatural is just a human concept. Which is only natural.
-->
@zedvictor4
Man made is what man has created. The creations are more man-made than natural because people are not allowing things to naturally occur instead create things to speed up processes.If man is natural, then man made machines must also be natural.
If I save someone's life with money, is that not moral?Can you buy morality, though?
Nobody wants the planet to get hotter. But is preventing such an outcome worth the astonishing cost that it would require us all to pay?
Nuclear power baby.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It might happen during your life time so your life is going to be worse for not doing something about it.so long as you end first wgaf?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you could be right, but I haven't heard any such predictions, but again if there is a life after this one then who cares, if there isn't and life is basically meaningless then who cares, you see it just doesn't even matter. As a Nihillist I would think you'd understand that :)
and yes nuclear power ftw.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you could be right, but I haven't heard any such predictions, but again if there is a life after this one then who cares, if there isn't and life is basically meaningless then who cares, you see it just doesn't even matter. As a Nihillist I would think you'd understand that :)
Yeah it doesn't matter but it might ruin my enjoyment. I don't think anything can be really proved but it doesn't mean I would like to not enjoy life. I am pretty shite at that so I guess I am TheRealNihilist
-->
@TheRealNihilist
sure however the argument is that the climate change "solutions" would restrict what people can do and would make their lives not as enjoyable. For me not having my own vehicle and being forced to take public transportation is a big one. Forcing me to purchase an electric car with all the huge problems they bring would hamper my enjoyment and freedom to do what I want, when I want.
My Dad has a friend, few storms back they had to evacuate Florida, his friend has a Tesla. The range on it couldn't get him out of Florida before it need a recharge which takes about an hour. Just an example of what I don't want.
sure however the argument is that the climate change "solutions" would restrict what people can do and would make their lives not as enjoyable
Not if the government incentives nuclear power. Nuclear power is the best step forward moving away from fossil fuels. Less damage and more safe than that as well. It has a bad rep and for some reason fossil fuels don't have the same. Guess the profiteers are doing a good job at advertising.
For me not having my own vehicle and being forced to take public transportation is a big one.
Electric cars by 2030. Joke. Vehicles would be difficult to change. I think when electric cars become the better alternative. I don't see the need of buying standard cars. Better as in cheaper and more accessible as in electric stations are everywhere.
would hamper my enjoyment and freedom to do what I want, when I want.
You would have to agree you are limiting your freedom to a certain extent. Sure you can possibly pick up your gun and kill someone who really pisses you off but you have personally restricted yourself into not doing it given the state enforced laws.
My Dad has a friend, few storms back they had to evacuate Florida, his friend has a Tesla. The range on it couldn't get him out of Florida before it need a recharge which takes about an hour. Just an example of what I don't want.
I heard a different story. They go really far if you charge them. Guess they must've forgot.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Evolution.
You cannot separate humankind and it's actions from nature. No matter how hard you think about it.
1415 days later
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Most people are just living their short life,
'Maybe thinking as far as their kids life.
Even 'locale climate change people don't think on so much,
People can move,
Or just don't think much hurricanes,
After all, hurricanes come and go, land is still livable after the devastation.
Lot of people say water's are going to rise in places,
'Smart long planning would be to build like the Netherlands, (Maybe),
Their system of dykes and what,
And what better time to build 'before the water rises?
Eh, maybe they're already doing that in some places,
Though I don't know if it's 'enough.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lot of people no power,
Depends on big government,
To set the way,
Not that Texas communities 'couldn't build private electric or emergency electric systems (I assume),
Or stock up on provisions far ahead of time.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Personally if I was the head of some rich clan,
I'd dig into the Rocky Mountains,
And build it outer space tight,
Not that I expect any end of the world, anytime soon,
But who knows natural disasters, man made disasters,
Mars used to be nicer. . .
But as I'm not rich,
As I'm not immortal,
Or particularly altruistic,
I'm just going to live my selfish life, hope I live to one hundred, and that nothing 'too bad happens in 'my lifetime.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"So typically mortal. You never look to the long term. You build your cities right where glaciers will come screaming through in 200,000 years."
— Lich, 8-Bit Theater.
-->
@Lemming
I advocate for addressing the root cause of issues rather than merely treating the symptoms. Specifically, I prioritize tackling global climate change at its source rather than resorting to short-term solutions like building bigger dams. However, I find that many individuals involved in climate change initiatives lack a clear rationale behind their actions. While they may mention goals such as preserving biodiversity or reducing global temperatures, they often fail to explain why they believe these objectives are crucial. In my view, understanding the underlying problem is essential to finding effective solutions. We must identify and comprehend the issue thoroughly before labeling it as a problem and taking appropriate actions.