|
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 August 21 2019 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. The problem is that the US has committed to betting on coming out on top when the climate collapses rather than try to lead us away from it. The US proved Russia right with its first post-treaty missile launch for example while China Is Spending 3 Times as Much as the US on Renewable Energy
Or that is it doesn't collapse at all, which I think is actually most probable. Remember this is about the very volatile science of predicting the future of very complex systems with plenty of unknown variables.
|
Norway28706 Posts
On August 21 2019 16:45 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. Yes that would not make much difference,norway has a high co2/captiva emission as well. How did Norway get such good reputation in dealing with climate change? They are not better then any other western country,in fact they are one of the worst.
Norway is a cold, oil producing country with really big travel distances. All of these are factors that can be expected to significantly increase co2 emissions per capita. However going based on this, we can see that we have lower emissions per capita than countries like germany, netherlands or belgium, and almost half the emissions per capita of Canada, a country that compares in all these three areas. We have the least polluting oil production in the world, we have the most electric cars per capita in the world (49%, Iceland at #2 is at 18%, Sweden at #3 has 8.2%), and we've been spending $500 million per year on saving the rainforest. (A deal Bolsonaro is now ruining.  )
Obviously we can do more and myself I think we should spend a much larger % of our income on climate change mitigation, and like places all across the west, far too many of us are far too consumerist, and the 2 plane trips per inhabitant per year aren't doing much good either. But we're far, far better than the two north american countries, and if you're not looking blindly at co2 per capita then we're a bit better than the western european average too.
|
On August 21 2019 17:19 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. The problem is that the US has committed to betting on coming out on top when the climate collapses rather than try to lead us away from it. The US proved Russia right with its first post-treaty missile launch for example while China Is Spending 3 Times as Much as the US on Renewable Energy Or that is it doesn't collapse at all, which I think is actually most probable. Remember this is about the very volatile science of predicting the future of very complex systems with plenty of unknown variables.
Denial ain't just a shrinking river in Egypt it seems.
|
On August 21 2019 17:19 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. The problem is that the US has committed to betting on coming out on top when the climate collapses rather than try to lead us away from it. The US proved Russia right with its first post-treaty missile launch for example while China Is Spending 3 Times as Much as the US on Renewable Energy Or that is it doesn't collapse at all, which I think is actually most probable. Remember this is about the very volatile science of predicting the future of very complex systems with plenty of unknown variables.
Even if we literally knew ****all about the atmosphere and CO2 and temperatures themselves, we would still have more than enough data about loss of habitat and extinctions to be extremely worried. We are literally living through a mass extinction. This isn't some hypothetical "The climate will collapse", for many species and regions, it is COLLAPSING. Not potentially, not at some abstract future point, now.
|
On August 21 2019 17:19 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. The problem is that the US has committed to betting on coming out on top when the climate collapses rather than try to lead us away from it. The US proved Russia right with its first post-treaty missile launch for example while China Is Spending 3 Times as Much as the US on Renewable Energy Or that is it doesn't collapse at all, which I think is actually most probable. Remember this is about the very volatile science of predicting the future of very complex systems with plenty of unknown variables.
Well then I suppose if you ever get seriously sick you would trust yourself as well when making predictions about your own body, instead of all those doomsaying doctors at the hospital. Considering medicine is all about the very volatile science of predicting the future of the body's very complex systems which has plenty of unknown variables.
Or just let a plumber do your dental work.That one should be easy considering how simple the system is and the similarity between their professions.
|
On August 21 2019 18:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 16:45 pmh wrote:On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. Yes that would not make much difference,norway has a high co2/captiva emission as well. How did Norway get such good reputation in dealing with climate change? They are not better then any other western country,in fact they are one of the worst. Norway is a cold, oil producing country with really big travel distances. All of these are factors that can be expected to significantly increase co2 emissions per capita. However going based on this, we can see that we have lower emissions per capita than countries like germany, netherlands or belgium, and almost half the emissions per capita of Canada, a country that compares in all these three areas. We have the least polluting oil production in the world, we have the most electric cars per capita in the world (49%, Iceland at #2 is at 18%, Sweden at #3 has 8.2%), and we've been spending $500 million per year on saving the rainforest. (A deal Bolsonaro is now ruining. ) Obviously we can do more and myself I think we should spend a much larger % of our income on climate change mitigation, and like places all across the west, far too many of us are far too consumerist, and the 2 plane trips per inhabitant per year aren't doing much good either. But we're far, far better than the two north american countries, and if you're not looking blindly at co2 per capita then we're a bit better than the western european average too.
I had the exact same discussion with a friend yesterday. The size of the country and its low density is a bit of an unsolvable problem when it comes to plane travels. Going from Oslo to Bøde by land is a bit of an epic journey and the low density and harsh terrain and winter conditions make a high speed train system totally unpractical.
I used to almost never fly when I lived between France and England, but since I live in Norway, my profession requires me to fly a lot more than I would like to.
|
On August 21 2019 19:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 18:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 21 2019 16:45 pmh wrote:On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. Yes that would not make much difference,norway has a high co2/captiva emission as well. How did Norway get such good reputation in dealing with climate change? They are not better then any other western country,in fact they are one of the worst. Norway is a cold, oil producing country with really big travel distances. All of these are factors that can be expected to significantly increase co2 emissions per capita. However going based on this, we can see that we have lower emissions per capita than countries like germany, netherlands or belgium, and almost half the emissions per capita of Canada, a country that compares in all these three areas. We have the least polluting oil production in the world, we have the most electric cars per capita in the world (49%, Iceland at #2 is at 18%, Sweden at #3 has 8.2%), and we've been spending $500 million per year on saving the rainforest. (A deal Bolsonaro is now ruining. ) Obviously we can do more and myself I think we should spend a much larger % of our income on climate change mitigation, and like places all across the west, far too many of us are far too consumerist, and the 2 plane trips per inhabitant per year aren't doing much good either. But we're far, far better than the two north american countries, and if you're not looking blindly at co2 per capita then we're a bit better than the western european average too. I had the exact same discussion with a friend yesterday. The size of the country and its low density is a bit of an unsolvable problem when it comes to plane travels. Going from Oslo to Bøde by land is a bit of an epic journey and the low density and harsh terrain and winter conditions make a high speed train system totally unpractical. I used to almost never fly when I lived between France and England, but since I live in Norway, my profession requires me to fly a lot more than I would like to.
Isn't Norway a country with a lot of sea border? So water travel would be an alternative that is possible? With harbours acting as public transport hubs.
|
Norway28706 Posts
boats are used a lot in the coastline, but they're not viable to travel from Oslo with. And yea like if you are travelling from Tromsø to Oslo, that's almost as long of a journey to say, Copenhagen to Madrid.
|
On August 21 2019 20:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
boats are used a lot in the coastline, but they're not viable to travel from Oslo with. And yea like if you are travelling from Tromsø to Oslo, that's almost as long of a journey to say, Copenhagen to Madrid.
So logical conclusion from an environmental standpoint is to eliminate if possible. How can we halve the amount of travel needed for that distance? Doctors over distance? Engineers over distance and so on? Of course full elimination is not possible but maybe 3 travel days is fine for those needs?
|
On August 21 2019 21:22 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 20:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
boats are used a lot in the coastline, but they're not viable to travel from Oslo with. And yea like if you are travelling from Tromsø to Oslo, that's almost as long of a journey to say, Copenhagen to Madrid. So logical conclusion from an environmental standpoint is to eliminate if possible. So how can we halve the amount of travel needed for that distance? Doctors over distance? Engineers over distance and so on? Of course full elimination is not possible but maybe 3 travel days is fine for those needs?
First you need to do research on why people actually need to travel that far. Once you have done that, you can try to figure out how to reduce some of those needs.
Or you just make flying more expensive and hope that the market solves the problem by itself. At least in Germany, fuel for planes is inexplicably exempt from paying the taxes on all other sorts of fuel. I have no idea why that is the case, but it means that flying is a lot cheaper than other forms of travel, and a lot cheaper than it has any right to be. If you make flying more expensive, people will try to figure out ways to avoid that expense.
On August 21 2019 20:05 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 19:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 21 2019 18:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 21 2019 16:45 pmh wrote:On August 21 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
As far as the environment goes it is a global problem, even if the US magically turned into Norway it would still be too late if others didn't improve their act. It will take a global effort. (A possible one)
That being said it would be nice if the worlds richest country was leading the way instead of talking like it is going to invest in coal....
What would be really cool is if the world put in the kind of effort it did for the space race or whatever. Imagine if China, Russia and the US were all fighting to see who could be the first to solve some of the biggest climate issues. Yes that would not make much difference,norway has a high co2/captiva emission as well. How did Norway get such good reputation in dealing with climate change? They are not better then any other western country,in fact they are one of the worst. Norway is a cold, oil producing country with really big travel distances. All of these are factors that can be expected to significantly increase co2 emissions per capita. However going based on this, we can see that we have lower emissions per capita than countries like germany, netherlands or belgium, and almost half the emissions per capita of Canada, a country that compares in all these three areas. We have the least polluting oil production in the world, we have the most electric cars per capita in the world (49%, Iceland at #2 is at 18%, Sweden at #3 has 8.2%), and we've been spending $500 million per year on saving the rainforest. (A deal Bolsonaro is now ruining. ) Obviously we can do more and myself I think we should spend a much larger % of our income on climate change mitigation, and like places all across the west, far too many of us are far too consumerist, and the 2 plane trips per inhabitant per year aren't doing much good either. But we're far, far better than the two north american countries, and if you're not looking blindly at co2 per capita then we're a bit better than the western european average too. I had the exact same discussion with a friend yesterday. The size of the country and its low density is a bit of an unsolvable problem when it comes to plane travels. Going from Oslo to Bøde by land is a bit of an epic journey and the low density and harsh terrain and winter conditions make a high speed train system totally unpractical. I used to almost never fly when I lived between France and England, but since I live in Norway, my profession requires me to fly a lot more than I would like to. Isn't Norway a country with a lot of sea border? So water travel would be an alternative that is possible? With harbours acting as public transport hubs.
The main problem with water travel is that it is really slow due to water resistance. While you can easily have a train moving at 200km/h or more, most ships basically cap out at at most 60km/h, usually less.
|
On August 21 2019 21:22 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 20:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
boats are used a lot in the coastline, but they're not viable to travel from Oslo with. And yea like if you are travelling from Tromsø to Oslo, that's almost as long of a journey to say, Copenhagen to Madrid. So logical conclusion from an environmental standpoint is to eliminate if possible. So how can we halve the amount of travel needed for that distance? Doctors over distance? Engineers over distance and so on? Of course full elimination is not possible but maybe 3 travel days is fine for those needs?
The other thing is that most norwegian cities are not only extremely isolated, but also actually smallish and very often you simply need to ship people if you want high quality professionals. In my branch the labour market is absolutely tiny in each city, so institutions don’t have an adequate worker pool in each city, and free lancers need to operate in the whole country to survive. So lots of people I know fly several times a month.
Frankly, I think the only thing to do is accept that air travel will always be part of norwegian life and try to save as much as possible elsewhere. I totally support sinking as much as possible internal flights in France through bans and taxation, because there is no excuse not to take the amazing high speed train network (i have taken a french internal flight once in my whole life and it was a connection), but Norway is a more complex case and extensive air travel is the only way not to condemn whole parts of the country to become totally irrelevant, both nationally and internationally.
|
Norway28706 Posts
I definitely think a big thing we should do is have way more internet-based events, conferences etc. I understand very much that people like mingling and that something is lost without physical interaction, but this is one of the lifestyle changes I feel 'the elite' should take responsibility for.
And yea in Norway it's not just the time-aspect where travelling from the Northern part to the southern part is impossible by train and takes 24 hours if you drive a car, it's also that a plane ticket from Trondheim to Oslo (which is 7 hours by train, 1 by plane) is more expensive than a train ticket.
|
On August 21 2019 21:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I definitely think a big thing we should do is have way more internet-based events, conferences etc. I understand very much that people like mingling and that something is lost without physical interaction, but this is one of the lifestyle changes I feel 'the elite' should take responsibility for.
And yea in Norway it's not just the time-aspect where travelling from the Northern part to the southern part is impossible by train and takes 24 hours if you drive a car, it's also that a plane ticket from Trondheim to Oslo (which is 7 hours by train, 1 by plane) is more expensive than a train ticket.
Totally agree on that, although it’s only in certain sectors that this is realistic. A huge number of jobs need your workers to be in situ.
One institution I know has banned hiring people who need to travel by air, and they have basically condemned themselves to be forever totally marginal, since they are supposed to operate on a market that ranges from national to the lowest workers to world wide for the highest.
|
I was wrong to call out Trumps disgusting comments on the Jews, as the King of Israel and second coming of God he is probably omniscient on all Jew opinions.
Him thinking himself a god is probably why he levels so well with Kim Jong Un
|
Wayne Allyn Root. Trump truly only draws from the best sources.
|
|
|
Making individual people stop flying and putting shame on an individual for flying is unproductive when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions. Sure flying releases a certain amount CO2 into the atmosphere, but compared to the sectors that we need to change it really is minuscule.
No one in Europe flies as much domestic flights as Norwegians and below in the spoiler are the CO2 emissions by transportation sector in Norway. While it releases some CO2, it is by far not the most significant category.
+ Show Spoiler +
In EU the CO2 emissions coming from aviation is only 2% and it is 3% globally. Ofc we need to hinder its growth, but aviation is not where you stop climate change, since its not what is currently causing it or has caused it historically. Sure it might be the major source of emission in the future, but not now.
Talking about how people should reduce their airtravel is just shifting the focus away from companies/sectors which needs to change onto individuals in order for them to shut up about climate change because they feel like they are being hypocritical/shamed.
|
|
|
I still think the best way to handle all of this at once is to simply put a (major) price onto CO2 (and methane and other climate gases), and then return that money to every citizen equally. Do this generally and don't exempt any sectors.
This encourages acting more CO2 conscious at all points without looking like a regressive tax and leading to problems like in france. The people who live environmentally friendly have more money than they had before, paid by those who are more climate unconscious. And since this money is actually given back to the citizens, this is not a regressive tax on poor people, but an actual tax on damaging the climate.
You need to figure out a way how to deal with borders doing this, but that should not be unsolvable either.
Suddenly, it doesn't matter if the gases are emitted producing energy, raising cattle, driving your car, or anything else. Whoever emits, pays, and if they want to, they can add those to the prices for their end customers. Meanwhile, every citizen actually sees additional money in their pocket every month, so they don't feel screwed by these price hikes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
