|
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 January 19 2021 00:26 Erasme wrote:
Yes, we are experts at adapting, but you're asking 1billion people to grow gills.
Not to mention what it'll do to biodiversity. Earth is more than human beings in buildings and a mass extinction event would have some pretty complicated consequences to every other form of life that can't completely adapt to it's climate on a whim.
EDIT: MLK was a lot of things people in the US hated.
|
On January 19 2021 00:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2021 23:26 Grumbels wrote:On January 18 2021 23:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:The goals of 0 emissions are only seemingly impossible because politicians ignored the advice from climate scientists from ~1970 until today though, because they favored short term economic gains over the long term welfare of the planet.  Almost the entire population on earth lives close to zero emissions, or at least below a level which would damage the earth. All of Africa, India and Latin America, most of East Asia. It is maybe a billion people who cause nearly all emissions. Not sure from what year your numbers are from, but 2018 numbers have China's per capita numbers at 90% of EU's per capita numbers. I most certainly agree that the west is to blame here - and I think we all need to reduce our emissions more than India or Africa needs to not increase theirs (we can't ask others not to do what we are doing ourselves) - and this is exacerbated further by the knowledge that the most impacted are the least responsible. But even then the 1 billion number is at least 1 billion short.
i’m paraphrasing, i didn’t check the exact numbers. Its probably off by a billion lol. But point is like 20% of pop. produce almost all enissions,. Or it’s only 20% who are above some “excess emission line” or something
|
|
|
On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one.
She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change.
She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board.
We had an employee from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research on the board a couple years back. He might've been more versed than Ms. Thunberg, but I will put the statement out there, that the current users are severely undereducated on the subject compared to her. Young - "child" - or not.
Some people have little concept of what a young mind is already capable. I dont really wanna assume that you fall into that category. But your post comes about rather blanket dismissive, so that makes it kinda hard not to.
|
This is a bizarre discussion. Thunberg isn't the face of climate science, she's the face of the (until then) voiceless and voteless future generations that our obstinance is screwing over. Being a child was the damn point.
|
Being educated on climate change is even kind of a complicated subject, its going to have so many unique and dramatic effects on so many facets of life on Earth. Like, as an example, I once did a paper on the spread of the Asian Tiger Mosquito and how far north it's anticipated to go, and it was projected to see a pretty sizeable increase in habitable territory stretching into Canada from the US. Mosquitos being nasty vectors for disease means that an increased northern presence could see some disease emerge that mosquitos transmit become a major problem given their increased ability to live in more northern climates.
Shits crazy, people like to bandy about stuff like, "bah! 5 degrees fahrenheit, I'll barely feel it," when in reality the impact these changes have can be so much more complicated.
I'd also like to say that one doesn't have to be hyper-educated about something to be an advocate for it. If you're capable of getting a message out there that can help drive a desire for change that can absolutely be a good thing. At the end of the day, the powers at be are supposed to respond to the people, a sizeable movement and push for something even without completely concrete hard core policy stuff behind it can force the people with the knowledge and ability to create the policy stuff to like, do the policy stuff.
Climate change could certainly use more charismatic voices speaking out in force in order to get people to take it more seriously imo.
On January 19 2021 21:25 Dan HH wrote:
This is a bizarre discussion. Thunberg isn't the face of climate science, she's the face of the (until then) voiceless and voteless future generations that our obstinance is screwing over. Being a child was the damn point.
Also a very good point, and a framing that I had kind of lost with regards to her tbh. Its an important one though, because this short term thinking is really fucking over future generations, and the old people in charge don't care because they'll be dead by the time the serious consequences of their actions take effect.
|
On January 19 2021 21:25 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2021 21:25 Dan HH wrote:
This is a bizarre discussion. Thunberg isn't the face of climate science, she's the face of the (until then) voiceless and voteless future generations that our obstinance is screwing over. Being a child was the damn point. Also a very good point, and a framing that I had kind of lost with regards to her tbh. Its an important one though, because this short term thinking is really fucking over future generations, and the old people in charge don't care because they'll be dead by the time the serious consequences of their actions take effect.
I've heard literally zero old people say they don't care because they will be dead by the time serious consequences appear. It's mainly denial that it is happening, that humans are not the cause or that we are adaptable so it doesn't matter.
|
On January 19 2021 07:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2021 07:09 Grumbels wrote:On January 19 2021 00:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 18 2021 23:26 Grumbels wrote:On January 18 2021 23:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:The goals of 0 emissions are only seemingly impossible because politicians ignored the advice from climate scientists from ~1970 until today though, because they favored short term economic gains over the long term welfare of the planet. Almost the entire population on earth lives close to zero emissions, or at least below a level which would damage the earth. All of Africa, India and Latin America, most of East Asia. It is maybe a billion people who cause nearly all emissions. Not sure from what year your numbers are from, but 2018 numbers have China's per capita numbers at 90% of EU's per capita numbers. I most certainly agree that the west is to blame here - and I think we all need to reduce our emissions more than India or Africa needs to not increase theirs (we can't ask others not to do what we are doing ourselves) - and this is exacerbated further by the knowledge that the most impacted are the least responsible. But even then the 1 billion number is at least 1 billion short. i’m paraphrasing, i didn’t check the exact numbers. Its probably off by a billion lol. But point is like 20% of pop. produce almost all enissions,. Or it’s only 20% who are above some “excess emission line” or something The big problem with this line of thinking is that most of the places that you are talking about don't make less emissions because they are doing a better job, they do it because they are poorer. If you look the places you are talking about and check into the people with comparable wealth to a western European they are worse. The other problem is because they have been poorer for so long they lack a lot of infrastructure and much of the populace will have (or feel they have) more pressing needs/wants than lowering emissions and so on. This is why you have places like China still building coal power plants. So unless the plan is to take away a whole bunch of wealth from the populace that the countries you mentioned have less emissions does not really matter. Because it is not lifestyle or cultural it is wealth based and as they raise their "quality of life" things are going to get dramatically worse because there is so many of them. Also you have to take India out of your examples they have the 3rd most emissions when you don't figure per capita and China is #1 (almost double the US and soon will be), US, the India. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
But on your chart India has 1/15th of the world emissions but like 1/6th of the population. Per capita is the most relevant metric here, unless you want to argue that India has additional responsibility to lower its emissions for having a larger population. They can't exactly cull their population to lower emissions, whereas there is an existing plan to transition the United States to a carbon neutral economy within a few decades called the green new deal. Furthermore, most of the emissions in China are because of Western consumers, similarly most of the emissions in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela are because of oil production which ultimately benefits Western consumers.
On January 19 2021 22:10 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2021 21:25 Zambrah wrote:On January 19 2021 21:25 Dan HH wrote:
This is a bizarre discussion. Thunberg isn't the face of climate science, she's the face of the (until then) voiceless and voteless future generations that our obstinance is screwing over. Being a child was the damn point. Also a very good point, and a framing that I had kind of lost with regards to her tbh. Its an important one though, because this short term thinking is really fucking over future generations, and the old people in charge don't care because they'll be dead by the time the serious consequences of their actions take effect. I've heard literally zero old people say they don't care because they will be dead by the time serious consequences appear. It's mainly denial that it is happening or that humans are not the cause.
Really? I feel like this is part of why older people overwhelmingly don't seem to care about fixing the climate. And I know young people too who say that the climate can't be saved anymore anyway, so why bother.
|
On January 19 2021 22:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2021 22:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 19 2021 21:25 Zambrah wrote:On January 19 2021 21:25 Dan HH wrote:
This is a bizarre discussion. Thunberg isn't the face of climate science, she's the face of the (until then) voiceless and voteless future generations that our obstinance is screwing over. Being a child was the damn point. Also a very good point, and a framing that I had kind of lost with regards to her tbh. Its an important one though, because this short term thinking is really fucking over future generations, and the old people in charge don't care because they'll be dead by the time the serious consequences of their actions take effect. I've heard literally zero old people say they don't care because they will be dead by the time serious consequences appear. It's mainly denial that it is happening or that humans are not the cause. Really? I feel like this is part of why older people overwhelmingly don't seem to care about fixing the climate. And I know young people too who say that the climate can't be saved anymore anyway, so why bother.
It's more complicated than 'I don't care because I will be dead anyway'. Acknowledging that your lifestyle is the cause of climate change implies accepting that you're partly responsible for it, that you're responsible for ruining the world for your children. It's much easier to believe that climate change is not happening, or that there is nothing to be done, or that it doesn't matter than admit that you're the cause of the problem. This is particularly true if everything you hear reconfirms these beliefs.
Edit: I'm also guilty here! I have travelled via plane extensively for work (dozens of international trips per year). I justify it to myself 'this is part of my job, I can't not go to conferences!' The reality is that I made a choice knowing full well that this would be the result and that I could take the train instead -- but it's so inconvenient! etc. The worrisome part is that I consider myself to care deeply about climate change, but I rationalise my inaction as 'the government should be the one pushing these changes, one man does not make a difference, etc.' I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes to solve the issue but at every opportunity I've had to do something personally, I never do.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board.
Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof.
I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25533 Posts
I’d imagine it’s why vegans are so often the butt of jokes for being moralisers and annoying or what have you. Down to brass tacks I think most people know that ideally not consuming animal products is the right thing to do, and they’re not doing that so they’ll redirect that shortcoming outwards and back at the messenger for being pious etc.
Be it climate change or any number of areas I think people compartmentalising between their own successes and offsetting if not blame then acknowledgement of their own privileges, offsetting their misfortunes to wider society while not acknowledging their own debts to it is a huge impediment to all sorts of wider progress.
Generalising of course but it’s easier for older generations to joke about younger ones being snowflakes who don’t work hard than process that home ownership, cheap or free college etc were just things they were fortunate in being able to take advantage of.
Climate change it’s harder again, and equally us younger folks have to do our part, but its effects are still not really observable in affecting our day-to-day yet so making the requisite sacrifices in changing lifestyles can seem pointless, especially if not many others are doing it.
Be it wartime experiences, or indeed the current Covid era people can suck up huge declines in quality of life for tangible threats to it, the challenge is getting some kind of wholesale changes made for one that is merely looming over the horizon.
|
On January 19 2021 23:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board. Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof. I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting.
If someone were getting really upset that a black high school student were making speeches on racial justice and relations, would you find a reasonable response to be that they need to go get a degree in social studies? To me that sounds like "I agree with you, now go away for a few years so I don't have to listen to what you're saying anymore". You can't just go get a degree, lol. I'm also unsure what you mean by saying there's a time and place for taking about an incoming climate crisis.
Young people have a voice too. The fact that they're motivated enough to be active about it should be encouraging, not annoying.
|
On January 20 2021 00:57 WombaT wrote:
I’d imagine it’s why vegans are so often the butt of jokes for being moralisers and annoying or what have you. Down to brass tacks I think most people know that ideally not consuming animal products is the right thing to do, and they’re not doing that so they’ll redirect that shortcoming outwards and back at the messenger for being pious etc.
Be it climate change or any number of areas I think people compartmentalising between their own successes and offsetting if not blame then acknowledgement of their own privileges, offsetting their misfortunes to wider society while not acknowledging their own debts to it is a huge impediment to all sorts of wider progress.
Generalising of course but it’s easier for older generations to joke about younger ones being snowflakes who don’t work hard than process that home ownership, cheap or free college etc were just things they were fortunate in being able to take advantage of.
Climate change it’s harder again, and equally us younger folks have to do our part, but its effects are still not really observable in affecting our day-to-day yet so making the requisite sacrifices in changing lifestyles can seem pointless, especially if not many others are doing it.
Be it wartime experiences, or indeed the current Covid era people can suck up huge declines in quality of life for tangible threats to it, the challenge is getting some kind of wholesale changes made for one that is merely looming over the horizon.
Also, there is a huge difference between temporary stuff and permanent change. People can accept a lot more if they know it is temporary, but "for the rest of my life" sounds a lot harder. "Not eating meat ever again" is a lot harder to stomach than "not eating meat until this crisis is over". This is another thing that is different between wartime stuff or covid stuff and climate change stuff.
Also, effects of climate change are already being felt, but they are sadly so nebulous that you only really notice them statistically, so it is really hard to connect that with tangible experiences AND climate change in your mind.
|
|
|
On January 20 2021 01:16 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure that veganism is the way to go, though I do think we eat way to much meat in the west.
I was just using the same analogy here, my point was about permanent versus temporary measures and how people react to them. (Though i am mostly vegan at this point, and haven't eaten meat for years)
The same argument could be made about people in WW2 probably being okay with not using silk due to the war effort, but i assume they would have had a much harder time with it if it were a really permanent measure, and they would be expected not to use silk ever again.
Temporary hardships with an expectation that stuff will go back to normal are a lot easier to stomach than permanent lifestyle changes.
|
On January 19 2021 23:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board. Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof. I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting.
It is unnecessarily denigrating of you to say that she is spouting stuff. And calling me ignorant and insulting for my suggestion that she knows what she's talking about is funny.
I think you could elaborate how people gain knowledge according to your understanding. Maybe this clears up some stuff.
You know rather little about what and how much she knows, which is rather akin to the position you find me in. Funny indeed.
|
|
|
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
