|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 02 2019 11:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because it isn't happening fast enough for you,
No. it's not happening fast enough to prevent massive human suffering on a scale that makes WWII look like bikini car wash.
you want to throw a temper tantrum and cry we need a revolution.
I think I'm being rather sensible and your posts more accurately reflect a "temper tantrum", but don't think this stuff is productive and is why I requested you leave it out. I'm not "cry[ing] revolution" I'm offering it as a solution as opposed to the literally "no solution" you say you're offering.
Can you fathom how large this problem and others like it, truly is? Take a moment and come up with a solid plan to make the changes you want.
"I said I wanted to start a conversation with ideas. You crying that I don't have a plan isn't helping."
Start with waste management. You can do it on a local level first if that is more your speed. Then enlarge it to encapsulate the entire fucking nation.
What I explained, with data, was that the last 30 years of "waste management" in the west was just (legally and illegally) shipping the waste to poorer countries with less restrictions. You've offered nothing to address this ongoing problem.
Once you've managed that thought process,
lol come on man.
On June 02 2019 11:46 mikedebo wrote:
There are several good subreddits to join if you're interested in contributing more to helping fight climate change. r/extinctionrebellion, r/climateoffensive, and r/climateactionplan are all good.
I honestly think that for an average citizen, it's more impactful on this topic to be politically active rather than to reduce your own consumption. There was some stat floated the other day in one of the climate subreddits about how it only takes 3% of the population to get behind a cause for it to cause substantial political change.
I absolutely agree political engagement is a better way for individuals to impact climate change than responses like "recycle more!" and "let's use the free market!" and by "political engagement" I don't mean voting for Joe Biden (or considering it really).
|
On June 02 2019 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 11:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because it isn't happening fast enough for you, No. it's not happening fast enough to prevent massive human suffering on a scale that makes WWII look like bikini car wash. I think I'm being rather sensible and your posts more accurately reflect a "temper tantrum", but don't think this stuff is productive and is why I requested you leave it out. I'm not "cry[ing] revolution" I'm offering it as a solution as opposed to the literally "no solution" you say you're offering. Show nested quote +Can you fathom how large this problem and others like it, truly is? Take a moment and come up with a solid plan to make the changes you want. "I said I wanted to start a conversation with ideas. You crying that I don't have a plan isn't helping." Show nested quote +Start with waste management. You can do it on a local level first if that is more your speed. Then enlarge it to encapsulate the entire fucking nation. What I explained, with data, was that the last 30 years of "waste management" in the west was just (legally and illegally) shipping the waste to poorer countries with less restrictions. You've offered nothing to address this ongoing problem. lol come on man.
For the umpteenth time. And I cannot stress this any more than I already have. Can. You. Fathom. The. Complexity. Of. It. You stop the shipping of waste to poorer countries, where do you put it now? Burn it? Bury it? Shoot it into space? Oh, you want to recycle it? How large of an operation would it take to recycle, effectively, all of the waste that can be recycled? Who funds it? Where do you base these operations? How do you curb the emissions so as to not increase the current levels? Oh, you tax the corporations who are running it or offer incentives?
|
Be sure to read the methodology of this study. The greenhouse emissions include three scopes in this case which basically boils down to oil and coal extractors are on the hook for anything even tangentially related downstream. People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline.
|
On June 02 2019 11:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2019 11:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because it isn't happening fast enough for you, No. it's not happening fast enough to prevent massive human suffering on a scale that makes WWII look like bikini car wash. you want to throw a temper tantrum and cry we need a revolution. I think I'm being rather sensible and your posts more accurately reflect a "temper tantrum", but don't think this stuff is productive and is why I requested you leave it out. I'm not "cry[ing] revolution" I'm offering it as a solution as opposed to the literally "no solution" you say you're offering. Can you fathom how large this problem and others like it, truly is? Take a moment and come up with a solid plan to make the changes you want. "I said I wanted to start a conversation with ideas. You crying that I don't have a plan isn't helping." Start with waste management. You can do it on a local level first if that is more your speed. Then enlarge it to encapsulate the entire fucking nation. What I explained, with data, was that the last 30 years of "waste management" in the west was just (legally and illegally) shipping the waste to poorer countries with less restrictions. You've offered nothing to address this ongoing problem. Once you've managed that thought process, lol come on man. For the umpteenth time. And I cannot stress this any more than I already have. Can. You. Fathom. The. Complexity. Of. It.
Yes, I'd contend that between the two of us I've demonstrated a more thorough understanding of the complexities at play.
You stop the shipping of waste to poorer countries, where do you put it now?
You stop making it, so nowhere.
Burn it? Bury it? Shoot it into space? Oh, you want to recycle it? How large of an operation would it take to recycle, effectively, all of the waste that can be recycled? Who funds it? Where do you base these operations? How do you curb the emissions so as to not increase the current levels? Oh, you tax the corporations who are running it or offer incentives?
That's basically your (the neoliberal) plan and I'm pointing out the infeasibility of it as well as it's demonstrated failure and thus far. Also noting that the plan as presented (the Paris Agreement that the US abandoned) isn't enough, nor are western countries meeting their own proposed obligations so I'd argue it's largely useless as an idea let alone a plan.
On June 02 2019 12:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Be sure to read the methodology of this study. The greenhouse emissions include three scopes in this case which basically boils down to oil and coal extractors are on the hook for anything even tangentially related downstream. People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline.
They are responsible. They knew decades ago their business model threatened humanity and did nothing. Other than that I'll leave entertaining climate denial arguments to those that prefer to spend their time dunking on Republicans.
|
Feel free to argue with the strawman that said they weren't responsible.
|
On June 02 2019 12:13 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Feel free to argue with the strawman that said they weren't responsible.
You said
People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline.
Which sounds to me like you're saying people don't take climate change seriously because studies like these use methodology (I'm taking you at your word for your description) that assigns responsibility you now imply you don't disagree is accurate.
|
On June 02 2019 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 12:13 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Feel free to argue with the strawman that said they weren't responsible. You said Show nested quote +People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline. Which sounds to me like you're saying people don't take climate change seriously because studies like these use methodology that assigns responsibility you now imply you don't disagree is accurate.
I'm saying this study uses a methodology to inflate numbers for a headline and people should be aware of that since you decided to link an article and a one liner.
|
On June 02 2019 12:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2019 12:13 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Feel free to argue with the strawman that said they weren't responsible. You said People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline. Which sounds to me like you're saying people don't take climate change seriously because studies like these use methodology that assigns responsibility you now imply you don't disagree is accurate. I'm saying this study uses a methodology to inflate numbers for a headline and people should be aware of that since you decided to link an article and a one liner. and yes people don't take climate change seriously when you mic drop some stupid study like this one.
How are they inflated if you agree they are responsible for their downstream impacts?
|
On June 02 2019 12:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Be sure to read the methodology of this study. The greenhouse emissions include three scopes in this case which basically boils down to oil and coal extractors are on the hook for anything even tangentially related downstream. People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline.
I mean that's not quite fair. People have been publishing studies on climate change for ~120 years, it's not like some new thing we are just now figuring out. It's not for a lack of comprehensive studies that people don't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because doing anything about it involves making sacrifices people are not willing to make, also it's future me's problem.
(That said, I agree that it's almost tautological to say that companies extracting fossil fules are ultimately responsible for the burning of fossil fuels).
As a side note, I wonder how much CO2 per capita America could save if A) people stopped using air conditioning. B) The people commuting to their office jobs in Ford Focuses or SUVs switched to some kind of mini car. Probably a non-negligible amount, far from enough, but non-negligible. But the price is already too high, even if by magic we could tell people that with 100% certainty Miami will be under water in 50 years if we don't do this, they still wouldn't go for it. And at that point the entire exercise of CO2 reduction just seems a bit futile to me.
|
On June 02 2019 12:30 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 12:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Be sure to read the methodology of this study. The greenhouse emissions include three scopes in this case which basically boils down to oil and coal extractors are on the hook for anything even tangentially related downstream. People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline. I mean that's not quite fair. People have been publishing studies on climate change for ~120 years, it's not like some new thing we are just now figuring out. It's not for a lack of comprehensive studies that people don't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because doing anything about it involves making sacrifices people are not willing to make, also it's future me's problem. (That said, I agree that it's almost tautological to say that companies extracting fossil fules are ultimately responsible for the burning of fossil fuels). As a side note, I wonder how much CO2 per capita America could save if A) people stopped using air conditioning. B) The people commuting to their office jobs in Ford Focuses or SUVs switched to some kind of mini car. Probably a non-negligible amount, far from enough, but non-negligible. But the price is already too high, even if by magic we could tell people that with 100% certainty Miami will be under water in 50 years if we don't do this, they still wouldn't go for it. And at that point the entire exercise of CO2 reduction just seems a bit futile to me.
I don't see how studies with bad methodology (as Blitzkrieg0 points out, to generate impressive headlines) help the vaunted comprehensive studies properly conducted. People get the idea that the better studies might have committed the same logical leaps, since the people pointing to them also point to the clickbaity bad ones with zero compunction. Instructing people on the difference between lazy activist science studies, and the real proper ones, is "future you's problem" if no action is taken in the intermediate term.
|
|
|
On June 02 2019 13:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 12:30 KlaCkoN wrote:On June 02 2019 12:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Be sure to read the methodology of this study. The greenhouse emissions include three scopes in this case which basically boils down to oil and coal extractors are on the hook for anything even tangentially related downstream. People don't take climate change seriously because every study people argue with has a methodology like this one like render it completely meaningless beyond the headline. I mean that's not quite fair. People have been publishing studies on climate change for ~120 years, it's not like some new thing we are just now figuring out. It's not for a lack of comprehensive studies that people don't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because doing anything about it involves making sacrifices people are not willing to make, also it's future me's problem. (That said, I agree that it's almost tautological to say that companies extracting fossil fules are ultimately responsible for the burning of fossil fuels). As a side note, I wonder how much CO2 per capita America could save if A) people stopped using air conditioning. B) The people commuting to their office jobs in Ford Focuses or SUVs switched to some kind of mini car. Probably a non-negligible amount, far from enough, but non-negligible. But the price is already too high, even if by magic we could tell people that with 100% certainty Miami will be under water in 50 years if we don't do this, they still wouldn't go for it. And at that point the entire exercise of CO2 reduction just seems a bit futile to me. I don't see how studies with bad methodology (as Blitzkrieg0 points out, to generate impressive headlines) help the vaunted comprehensive studies properly conducted. People get the idea that the better studies might have committed the same logical leaps, since the people pointing to them also point to the clickbaity bad ones with zero compunction. Instructing people on the difference between lazy activist science studies, and the real proper ones, is "future you's problem" if no action is taken in the intermediate term.
You can't (with legitimacy) cite his assessment without addressing his failure to account for it's contradictory nature.
|
Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change.
|
On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote:
Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change.
So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress?
|
On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote:
Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change.
I think we'd agree that "market demand" isn't manifested through thin air or simply a conglomeration of individual desires (at least not evenly weighted ones), no?
I agree that we can't put the responsibility only at the feet of individual companies without taking into consideration the context within which they operate or whom that benefits/suffers from all this pollution.
As to solutions I agree that we're mostly hosed as to making the kind of drastic standard of living changes necessary to address climate catastrophe in time. As such, it makes sense to instead divert the massive military budget of the US toward what the Pentagon itself called an "immediate risk" (in 2014) imo.
Halving (gross estimate) the military budget by dramatically reducing our military presence around the world then diverting that to social funding and climate tech is a far more realistic "starting" idea then the individualistic stuff that happens with the most superficial analysis of this stuff imo.
Granted that's a solution mostly within the neoliberal framework people seem inseparably attached to.
|
On June 02 2019 14:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote:
Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change. So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress?
What do you mean by "capacity"?
|
|
|
On June 02 2019 14:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 14:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote:
Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change. So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress? What do you mean by "capacity"?
The rate at which they absorb and store solar energy. If I remember, I think the best one's are still below 50%. They may be higher though.
Edit: I should have used the word efficiency. I did a quick search just now and they are hovering between 15-22%.
|
On June 02 2019 14:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 14:14 IgnE wrote:On June 02 2019 14:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote:
Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change. So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress? What do you mean by "capacity"? The rate at which they absorb and store solar energy. If I remember, I think the best one's are still below 50%. They may be higher though. Edit: I should have used the word efficiency. I did a quick search just now and they are hovering between 15-22%.
Photo-voltaic is just one stick in the technological bundle, but it will probably be pretty good by 2035 or 2040. Fusion is still a possibility. Maybe carbon capture technologies. You never know.
This battery is an intriguing electrochemical mystery. It has its critics, but the point is that weird stuff can still happen. I don't see sufficient cause for pessimism about the future of energy.
|
On June 02 2019 14:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2019 14:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 02 2019 14:14 IgnE wrote:On June 02 2019 14:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote:
Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change. So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress? What do you mean by "capacity"? The rate at which they absorb and store solar energy. If I remember, I think the best one's are still below 50%. They may be higher though. Edit: I should have used the word efficiency. I did a quick search just now and they are hovering between 15-22%. Photo-voltaic is just one stick in the technological bundle, but it will probably be pretty good by 2035 or 2040. Fusion is still a possibility. Maybe carbon capture technologies. You never know. This battery is an intriguing electrochemical mystery. It has its critics, but the point is that weird stuff can still happen. I don't see sufficient cause for pessimism about the future of energy.
I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic so much legitimately concerned that the intersection of profitability and the threat of extinction becoming a promise that triggers the kind of rapid changes we need is happening too late for hundreds of millions if not billions of people that will suffer as a result and that's grossly unethical imo.
Additionally that this threat will be used as leverage by an entrenched class who's exploitative practices against those they are already exploiting are the primary culprits. Even the more progressive solutions like relying on technological advancements in tandem with at least a base recognition of the problem at hand (and social pressure to do something) while better than nothing, it's still woefully insufficient according to the science and political reality (from my perspective) in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
