ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Multiple mistakes in your post Morbo.

First, those "people" aren't all the same. Believe it or not, there's opposition to the idea of increased population.

Second, it's not because X does not do something that you shouldn't do it. If you have to wait for someone else to do something, then you are looking at complete stagnation and that benefit no one, especially in a context where doing nothing = complete doom.

China should be doing a lot more than it currently does to combat pollution, I don't think you'll see anyone arguing otherwise. Same goes for India. The thing though, is that both of those country are being in term of technology, especially India. Helping them develop/implement greener technologies to reduce pollution helps EVERYONE on the planet. Pollution, especially air pollution, is a global thing. Water pollution too but it's slower. Ground pollution is the only one that can be localized but even then, it often leaks into water pollution and can become global too. Thus, it is far better to concentrate efforts on these countries. That said, you are correct that there should be serious economic sanctions implemented against heavy polluters. The reason there's not is that economists have a bigger impact on decision making than ecologists. Making money is somehow seen as more important than making sure we can stay alive in 100 years, it's a terrifying mindset...


Solar and wind power are both far more efficient than you give it credit for. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades

Solar can be installed everywhere. A city that would have solar panels on all of it's rooftops would generate a LOT of electricity at very low cost. Solar also has a huge amount of potential for improvement as it's current conversion efficiency is around 15%. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems. It's extremely costly to build, it's huge, it creates waste that is extremely dangerous, needs very high quality of workers and always has a risk of catastrophic failure.

PS, the term climate change was born because global warming does not just mean increased temperature. It's destabilizing climate as we've known it for millenias. Hurricanes/tornadoes are stronger than ever, flooding is happening in areas that never had it, drought are happening in a alarming pace, forest fires are more common than ever and the arctic closed environment is disappearing, with its extremely cold temperature being sent down. It's why it was changed.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
Here is how much China is "like the U.S."....

Learn some basics, before making any plans for war, ok ?


https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Maybe you take a look at some other countries, too.
If you look around the world, lots of countries cannot even pay for their own security...
Last edited by Schmodderhengst on Nov 9, 2018, 5:04:19 AM
"
faerwin wrote:
you are correct that there should be serious economic sanctions implemented against heavy polluters.


The point is the aims must be realistic. It needs some time, effort and money to change your energy supply to non-fossile and non-nuclear (lots of radioactive waste for thousands of years, nono) energy. Energy networks cost money, pumped storage power plants as well and so on. Not every country can do that fast, if there is too little international support (https://climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/GCF%20and%20Paris%20Brief%202016.new_.pdf).

Sanctions would be counter-productive if the aims for a specific country are not realistic.

So unless that happens: different aims, different pace.

But those who have the money, should make this a priority. Btw to a huge extent they have the money because they are industrialized and contributed most to the atmospheric CO2 over the years.

I don´t see how anyone can not understand that. It is a little frustrating , I have to admit.
Last edited by Schmodderhengst on Nov 9, 2018, 5:07:19 AM
"
Completed 5 ChallengesAim_Deep wrote:
All I know is how to dig holes in the ground, manage ppl, deal with city hall and a bit about geo politics. Not fucking science

To know something about geo politics means to know science. About geo politics. One of the most complicated things there is in human relations. Thanks for the insights though.
Yeah. Anti-establishment. Hahahaha. Sheep believed the wolf.
Understanding that global climatic cycles are ongoing and inevitable, the whole conceit that, right now, humankind is somehow influencing those cycles in any meaningful way is laughable on its face. That said, there will eventually be warmer periods and ice ages to come. The problem is to know which will be next, how soon it will come, and if human society as we know it will be able to cope with it.

This business of "offsets" and "carbon credits" is just climate profiteering. ='[.]'=
=^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/
whiskers [email protected][.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled /
=-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =*[.]*= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes
"
Raycheetah wrote:
Understanding that global climatic cycles are ongoing and inevitable, the whole conceit that, right now, humankind is somehow influencing those cycles in any meaningful way is laughable on its face.


It´s either science or stupidity. You may choose.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html

If too many people decide they want to listen to ignorant echo chambers, humanity is done.
Last edited by Schmodderhengst on Nov 9, 2018, 5:54:11 AM
edited. Don't want to be rude.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Yeah. Anti-establishment. Hahahaha. Sheep believed the wolf.
Last edited by ghamadvar on Nov 9, 2018, 6:22:57 AM
"
faerwin wrote:
Pollution, especially air pollution, is a global thing. Water pollution too but it's slower.

I certainly agree on pollution. The thing is that westerners (esp. we in Europe) already have strict anti-pollution legislation and we are in the process of going more and more toward "green" energy. But iirc the Paris accord gives a complete pass until 2030 to China to do whatever they want. The argument "West polluted 40 years ago" is irrelevant, because now it's supposed to be an emergency. The agreement is also non-binding (iirc), so what's all the fuss of Trump bailing out? In the end it might turn out no one (except maybe EU / Canada) will respect the terms.

Believe it or not I'm actually an environmentalist, I'm just not buying the UN "solutions". I think that combating pollution (air, water, sea, soil), soil depletion (due to mono-culture farming), deforestation, etc... are all more important than profit margins of global capitalism. I support environmental conservation over "GDP" and the fanaticism of "infinite capital growth".

But what is driving all this pollution? It's consumerism. It's people going on vacation on the other side of the planet 3X per year. It's buying a new iPhone every year. It's urbanization and people migrating to cities. It's behaving like zombified pigs, eating ourselves into an early grave & "fixing" ourselves with drugs. It's also women in Africa having 7 kids on average, while they could maybe only afford one. And then they need to be saved with foreign help - medicine, food, education, jobs...

It's the consumerist lifestyle (I want cheap crap and I want it now) + profit margins, that is driving production from the 1st world, into the 3rd where they can pollute all they want. And rabid consumerism cannot be legislated, it can only be rejected consciously by each individual. Enough people consciously tuning down their opulent lifestyle can do more about pollution than any UN agency.

---

But global population growth and the idea that everyone needs to reach western style living, is what will prevent any real changes, imo. Despite new technologies being worked on and implemented (not fast enough), it will still be cheaper to run on fossil fuel, until we squeeze every last drop of oil and coal. You have billions of people that are technologically and socially behind the western civilization and for the foreseeable future they wont be able to afford "clean" energy. Nor will they feel the need to.

There are people, cultures & political systems that don't give a damn about environmental conservation, not even on a local level. India is a stinking dumpster with garbage lying and floating around. Ditto Africa & meso-america. The Chinese regime in their haste to catch up with the West, has poisoned everything they can - rivers, lakes, soil, city air. You have communities that don't bother removing the trash infront of their noses. Expecting such people to care about the environment on an even more abstract global level, is futile imo.
When night falls
She cloaks the world
In impenetrable darkness
Last edited by morbo on Nov 9, 2018, 7:38:25 AM
"
Completed 6 Challengesmorbo wrote:
rabid consumerism cannot be legislated
Why not? Do you believe that 7:1woman ratio in Africa is naturally occurring, or the result of policy?
A shining light in a sea of stagnant bong water.
"Bread is garbage. Pure sugar and carbs. Might as well have a Snikers bar with a Mountain Dew chaser. Tastes better less work." - OT Surgeon General Aim_Deep

Last edited by Rachel_GGG on Sep 31, 2018 0:61:72 PM
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
Completed 6 Challengesmorbo wrote:
rabid consumerism cannot be legislated
Why not? Do you believe that 7:1woman ratio in Africa is naturally occurring, or the result of policy?

It's their natural reproduction strategy - high birth rates & high mortality. At least half of them would usually die, but because of foreign meddling (aka humanitarian help), all of them survive now. Which you can argue that it's a result of policy, yes, just not their policy.

The current stage of capitalism is reliant on (over)consumerism & the idea of "eternal growth". Which is leading not only to environment destruction, but is rotting our societies too. You could legislate and stop people from killing themselves with food / drugs / entertainment, just not in a system where politicians are beholden to corporations who are selling that food / drugs / entertainment.

Consumerism is not just buying gadgets you don't need and not giving a fuck about saving electricity - it's also intentionally ruining your health and then needing modern medicine to keep you alive. The net result is zero, you've just used up a ton of resources to fix a self-inflicted problem. That could be legislated too, just not in "human rights democracy" and "liberalism".

So, until we get that illiberal system, all we can do is try to convince western people to stop living like pigs and degenerates and put economic/political pressure on the rest of the world to follow better environmental guidelines. But it's hard to argue for the latter, when the pollution in China is happening also due to western companies operating there because of cheap labour.
When night falls
She cloaks the world
In impenetrable darkness

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info