US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2039

On January 18 2020 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Folks are free to correct me but I'm under the impression no one wants me to discuss things with JimmiC except JimmiC?

On January 18 2020 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Folks are free to correct me but I'm under the impression no one wants me to discuss things with JimmiC except JimmiC?

On January 18 2020 02:36 IgnE wrote:
Part of the problem might be that no one really knows what this supposed environmental catastrophe will look like. Maybe we should treat it more like an approaching asteroid: something that is definitely coming and cannot be avoided. The question then is what do we do now? Maybe 4 degrees celsius is a catastrophe but is 6 degrees a double catastrophe? a catastrophe squared? or is it still merely the same catastrophe?

On January 18 2020 02:36 IgnE wrote:
Part of the problem might be that no one really knows what this supposed environmental catastrophe will look like. Maybe we should treat it more like an approaching asteroid: something that is definitely coming and cannot be avoided. The question then is what do we do now? Maybe 4 degrees celsius is a catastrophe but is 6 degrees a double catastrophe? a catastrophe squared? or is it still merely the same catastrophe?

Between 184 and 270 million fewer people are projected to be exposed to increases in water scarcity in 2050 at about 1.5 degrees Celsius warming than at 2 degrees warming. Risks for groundwater depletion are projected to be greater at the higher temperature threshold as well.

Loss of Species and Extinction — The report studied 105,000 species of insects, plants and vertebrates. At 1.5 degrees Celsius warming, 6 percent of the insects, 8 percent of the plants and 4 percent of the vertebrates will see their climatically determined geographic range reduced by more than half.

At 2 degrees Celsius warming, those numbers jump to 18 percent, 16 percent and 8 percent, respectively. The consequences of such range changes could be considerable. Take insects, for example. Pollinating insects, such as bees, hoverflies and blowflies that support and maintain terrestrial productivity, including agriculture for human food consumption, have significantly greater geographic ranges at 1.5 degrees Celsius warming than at warming of 2 degrees.

The report projects entire ecosystems will transform, with about 13 percent of land areas projected to see their ecosystems shift from one type of biome to another at 2 degrees Celsius warming — about 50 percent more area than at 1.5 degrees warming.

On January 18 2020 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


I think part of the problem is that people think they'll (more realistically their progeny), will be invited into the ecological bunkers the wealthy are building in preparation for that catastrophe.

That the real horrific consequences will be reserved for the poor and vulnerable. They think that sucks, but it's less bad than it happening to them. So the priority is in securing a spot in a bunker (this is where the bootlicking comes in), not mitigating the catastrophe itself.

On January 18 2020 02:58 Wombat_NI wrote:

Here I’d diverge rather strongly from you.

1. The impact of climate change won’t be equivalently spread throughout the earth and its effects will be felt differently based purely on geographical location. While it will be easier to avoid for those on top of the class chain, it’ll be quite indiscriminate in terms of the class divide in terms of nation-states and their relations to one another. A first-world nation may find itself devastated, a third-world country may be in a better spot than before. Indeed we may see swathes of forced migration en masse from the developed world outwards.
2. I think the bootlicking mentality applies to people buying into the American Dream, and other nation’s equivalent, not here at all. I don’t think the vast majority of people have even considered any kind of scenario where bunkers are necessary, much less thinking where they’d be on the queue.

On January 18 2020 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:
Isn't the area around the equator where the increase in temperature will most effect human life? Which is also where a lot of the third-world is.
I don't so much expect migration from the developed world outward but more from the equator upwards (so South America to wards North America and Africa towards Europe) in much greater numbers then seen before.

On January 18 2020 02:58 Wombat_NI wrote:

Here I’d diverge rather strongly from you.

1. The impact of climate change won’t be equivalently spread throughout the earth and its effects will be felt differently based purely on geographical location. While it will be easier to avoid for those on top of the class chain, it’ll be quite indiscriminate in terms of the class divide in terms of nation-states and their relations to one another. A first-world nation may find itself devastated, a third-world country may be in a better spot than before. Indeed we may see swathes of forced migration en masse from the developed world outwards.
2. I think the bootlicking mentality applies to people buying into the American Dream, and other nation’s equivalent, not here at all. I don’t think the vast majority of people have even considered any kind of scenario where bunkers are necessary, much less thinking where they’d be on the queue.

On January 18 2020 03:11 farvacola wrote:
Any vision of the impact of climate change should account for the concepts of the Global North and Global South. The latter will inarguably bear the brunt of climate change’s impact.

On January 18 2020 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


I think part of the problem is that people think they'll (more realistically their progeny), will be invited into the ecological bunkers the wealthy are building in preparation for that catastrophe.

That the real horrific consequences will be reserved for the poor and vulnerable. They think that sucks, but it's less bad than it happening to them. So the priority is in securing a spot in a bunker (this is where the bootlicking comes in), not mitigating the catastrophe itself.

EDIT: Someone somewhere gave a simple text explanation of the effects at different degrees but NASA wrote up some stuff about just the difference between 1.5 degrees (we missed that window waiting for reforms) and 2.0 (we can hit this if we stop waiting).



climate.nasa.gov

On the other extreme I suppose we could all watch The Day After Tomorrow together?

On January 18 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:


1. I don't disagree that their hopes of making it on the equivalent of 2012 Arks are disconnected from reality or that there are geographic factors left unconsidered by many.

2. Dunno about there. I can believe that it's not something that occupies much of the headspace though since you're really at the mercy of countries like the US, China, and India.



Yup, the catch is the chain reaction food web stuff means that particular pockets throughout more temperate regions in the Global North will be uninhabitable as well.

On January 18 2020 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The past 200 years has been a great success story for humanity. The countries today that are the worst off, are by many (most, I'd say) metrics better off than the countries that were the best to live in 200 years ago. (gapminder.org/tools). I think capitalism has been instrumental in achieving this, it is a system that has spurred growth on a global scale that has, even though income and wealth have not been distributed remotely evenly, has still lifted the floor in a very significant manner. Most people in the world today live in middle-income countries, way more people have education, way more people have access to basic health care, absolute poverty numbers are way down, as are malnourishment and starvation numbers. It has been great.

But this has been achieved through increasing the overall size of the pie. It has been achieved through a focus on immediate growth only achievable through a grand exploitation of nature (and people, but they were exploited equally much or significantly more, depending on which region of the world you are talking about, before) which is not remotely sustainable. And this is where the conflict arises, because I do not see capitalism function without growth. I think we have enough resources for all people to live reasonably content lives (with 8 billion people, lives of luxury are not attainable for all no matter how equitably the resources are shared), but that requires a grand effort of global redistribution. Western countries aren't willing to do that, so development countries figure they need to increase their own pie, too, for their inhabitants to achieve the living standards enjoyed by people in wealthier countries.

And my perspective is that it seems increasingly clear that this is not tenable any longer. However, I cannot ask development countries to 'please don't increase your consumption habits to match more than 25% (arbitrary number) of those of people living in my country'. First, my country must reduce its consumption habits. Capitalism is based around consumption. From the point of view of increasing profits, items that last forever are a bad idea. (And the few items that generally do last forever, like super amazing watches, patek philippe style, are priced so exorbitantly that only some fraction of the top 1% can afford them). But the way I see it, it's what we need. We need a grand cultural change of mindset where we stop competing with each other for status, and we need to stop attaching status to items and experiences. Capitalism desires both of these, because it is one of the driving factors of consumption.

I do believe there are plenty of capitalists that are personally concerned with the well being of the environment. I do believe that an ecologically conscious consumer base will lead to capitalism being more concerned with being ecologically friendly. However, I also believe all these positive efforts can (and will) largely be offset by greedy individuals. I don't accept that greed is part of human 'nature', I believe it is part of human culture within capitalist societies. I think the growth and consumption based mentality - even if it becomes more ecologically conscious, is not compatible with the type of ecological mindset required to fix out problems.

That I also think worker rights and life of most people get improved through more equitable conditions (coops, 'lower gini coefficients and all that entails', stuff like that.) But ecological concerns are the cornerstone of why I believe capitalism must be abandoned or amended to the point where it is no longer capitalism. It's not a new thought, either, not one spurred by current day exposure to an increasingly obvious impending climate crisis. One of tl.net's alltime greats, arbiter[frolix], wrote this post back in 2004.

edit: this post doesn't imply that I think organizing a worldwide socialist revolution is attainable, to address igne's recent point. And I'm happy to see progress in any shape or form. But also thinking the whole situation is fundamentally depressing, and one it is hard to find tidbits of optimism within. The best case I can find is that humanity has been through some pretty fkn rough patches before, but for 'the earth', I think we have to go back millions of years.

On January 18 2020 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The past 200 years has been a great success story for humanity. The countries today that are the worst off, are by many (most, I'd say) metrics better off than the countries that were the best to live in 200 years ago. (gapminder.org/tools). I think capitalism has been instrumental in achieving this, it is a system that has spurred growth on a global scale that has, even though income and wealth have not been distributed remotely evenly, has still lifted the floor in a very significant manner. Most people in the world today live in middle-income countries, way more people have education, way more people have access to basic health care, absolute poverty numbers are way down, as are malnourishment and starvation numbers. It has been great.

But this has been achieved through increasing the overall size of the pie. It has been achieved through a focus on immediate growth only achievable through a grand exploitation of nature (and people, but they were exploited equally much or significantly more, depending on which region of the world you are talking about, before) which is not remotely sustainable. And this is where the conflict arises, because I do not see capitalism function without growth. I think we have enough resources for all people to live reasonably content lives (with 8 billion people, lives of luxury are not attainable for all no matter how equitably the resources are shared), but that requires a grand effort of global redistribution. Western countries aren't willing to do that, so development countries figure they need to increase their own pie, too, for their inhabitants to achieve the living standards enjoyed by people in wealthier countries.

And my perspective is that it seems increasingly clear that this is not tenable any longer. However, I cannot ask development countries to 'please don't increase your consumption habits to match more than 25% (arbitrary number) of those of people living in my country'. First, my country must reduce its consumption habits. Capitalism is based around consumption. From the point of view of increasing profits, items that last forever are a bad idea. (And the few items that generally do last forever, like super amazing watches, patek philippe style, are priced so exorbitantly that only some fraction of the top 1% can afford them). But the way I see it, it's what we need. We need a grand cultural change of mindset where we stop competing with each other for status, and we need to stop attaching status to items and experiences. Capitalism desires both of these, because it is one of the driving factors of consumption.

I do believe there are plenty of capitalists that are personally concerned with the well being of the environment. I do believe that an ecologically conscious consumer base will lead to capitalism being more concerned with being ecologically friendly. However, I also believe all these positive efforts can (and will) largely be offset by greedy individuals. I don't accept that greed is part of human 'nature', I believe it is part of human culture within capitalist societies. I think the growth and consumption based mentality - even if it becomes more ecologically conscious, is not compatible with the type of ecological mindset required to fix out problems.

That I also think worker rights and life of most people get improved through more equitable conditions (coops, 'lower gini coefficients and all that entails', stuff like that.) But ecological concerns are the cornerstone of why I believe capitalism must be abandoned or amended to the point where it is no longer capitalism. It's not a new thought, either, not one spurred by current day exposure to an increasingly obvious impending climate crisis. One of tl.net's alltime greats, arbiter[frolix], wrote this post back in 2004.

edit: this post doesn't imply that I think organizing a worldwide socialist revolution is attainable, to address igne's recent point. And I'm happy to see progress in any shape or form. But also thinking the whole situation is fundamentally depressing, and one it is hard to find tidbits of optimism within. The best case I can find is that humanity has been through some pretty fkn rough patches before, but for 'the earth', I think we have to go back millions of years.