Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

So what? Fact is, tens of thousands of people flying to a conference to complain about fossil fuel use is hilarious whereas people driving to work and the grocery store, not so much.

What's hilarious about the most important conference in the history of mankind?

It's 2023, hold this thing by video conferencing. This is part of a world without fossil fuels will look like.

Video conferencing is OK, but nothing beats meeting in person for maximum impact. Harder for them to ignore you when you are literally in their face.

But I must ask:- if video conferencing is the answer then why are people still driving to work and to the grocery store? Shouldn't they be working remotely and having their groceries delivered? That's what many did during the Pandemic, and for the first time in years global greenhouse gas emissions want down. Covid showed us it was possible, But now we are back-sliding as things return to 'normal'.

I think it's 'hilarious' when people pick nits while not lifting a finger to do anything themselves. Actually it's not hilarious, it's sad. But that's humans for you - more concerned about winning an argument than stopping the planet from going to Hell.

 

[Stout]

What's hilarious about the most important conference in the history of mankind?

The hilarious part comes in 10s of thousands of people engaging in the very behaviour they all agree needs to stop. I tried to ram in a "you've got to spend money to make money" angle here but I couldn't get it to work.

Video conferencing is OK, but nothing beats meeting in person for maximum impact. Harder for them to ignore you when you are literally in their face.

Oh...and how's that been working out? Last time I checked we're om track fpr the hottest year ever. Thanks, in part, to 10s of thousands of people travelling large distances to talk about climate change.

But I must ask:- if video conferencing is the answer then why are people still driving to work and to the grocery store? Shouldn't they be working remotely and having their groceries delivered? That's what many did during the Pandemic, and for the first time in years global greenhouse gas emissions want down. Covid showed us it was possible, But now we are back-sliding as things return to 'normal'.

Working remotely should still be the gig thing that it was during the pandemic but it appears that offices, like COP are thinking that there are benefits to the maximum impact idea as well. Did a lot of people have their groceries delivered? I sure didn't, it was business as usual.

Yes, Covid showed us it was possible and that's been my point all along. Those are the kinds of lifestyle change we, as a society are going to have to strive for if we even want a snowball's chance of hitting 1.5C....or 2.0C....or 2.5C. Not too many people willing to put up with that in order to save the planet. eg. revenge travel.

I think it's 'hilarious' when people pick nits while not lifting a finger to do anything themselves. Actually it's not hilarious, it's sad. But that's humans for you - more concerned about winning an argument than stopping the planet from going to Hell.

Pointing out the utter failure of the climate movement to bring about the rapid and drastic changes they're demanding is "picking nits"? LOL, that's a classic example of over valuing the idea of talking about climate change.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....

Video conferencing is OK, but nothing beats meeting in person for maximum impact.
......

Get back to us with some of that impact.

 

[Stout]

Get back to us with some of that impact.

That maximum impact has been famously referred to as "blah blah blah" in the past.

 

[dann]

Oh come now. We are being forced to buy all that stuff and carry it home in plastic bags...

Meanwhile, in the real world: 60% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck as inflation hits workers' wages (CNBC, Sep 27, 2023).

Like I said, you are driving them into the arms of Trump and his MAGA movement with that argument: 'You guys consume too much, and your excessive shopping and consumption is what ruins the planet'.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow! Hyperbole, much?

Who is the viable green candidate that young voters should vote for?

 

[dann]

Why do you think they should vote for anybody?
You seem to think that voting is the solution to global warming.
It may be a temporary solution to the problem of getting an actual fascist into the White House if young voters can be persuaded to vote for the president who "has seen more oil production than any other presidency in the U.S. history," but that's not what this thread is about, is it?!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well, not all consumers can do something.
But 1% of them could:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-carbon-emissions-than-poorest-66-report-says

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Get back to us with some of that impact.

Allow me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/hilton/the-science-of-being-there/

Research shows face-to-face requests are 34 times more effective than those sent by email, and that a physical handshake promotes cooperation and influences negotiation outcomes for the better.

MIT’s Human Dynamics Lab spent hundreds of hours tracking performance drivers across industries by collecting data from electronic badges that covered everything from tone of voice to body language. The results showed unequivocally that the most valuable communication is done in-person, and that typically 35 percent of the variation in a given team’s performance was explained by the number of times team members actually spoke face-to-face.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/thinking-inside-box-why-virtual-meetings-generate-fewer-ideas

The study, coauthored by Jonathan Levav of Stanford Graduate School of Business and Melanie Brucks of Columbia Business School, finds that in-person teams generated more ideas than remote teams working on the same problem.

In a laboratory experiment conducted at Stanford, half the teams worked together in person and half did so online. The in-person teams generated 15% to 20% more ideas than their virtual counterparts. In a separate experiment involving almost 1,500 engineers at a multinational corporation, in-person teams came up with more ideas, and those ideas received higher ratings for originality.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, I understood what you said. My point is that the the Cop28 would like to make it seem as if fossil fuels are being phased out when in reality they aren't. The alleged move towards renewables isn't what you think it is, and vows are just vows and pledges are just pledges.

You think that more renewables means "a move towards renewables." A move towards implies a move away from something, and that's not really happening. From your link:
"Renewables expansion is the major contributor to CO2 emission reductions up to 2030 in the NZE Scenario."
A scenario is no better than a hope, a vow or a pledge.

I see. So you're just ignoring reality because of personal gloominess and cynicism. Fair enough.
For those of us not afflicated by chronic pessimism, here is a dose of reality.
The International Energy Agency is predicting that we are, or very soon will be, at peak fossil fuel use. Over the next 5 years, its percentage of our total usage will begin to decline, from 80% to 73%, and that trend should continue.
Now, granted, this is nowhere near enough, but it is happening nonetheless. To state that a move towards renewables does not entail a move away from fossil fuels is simply wrong.
dann,we can argue about the extent and impact of these changes- but only if you abandon your negativity, and acknowledge that these changes are happening.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1207...ns-fossil-fuel-demand-will-peak-soon-iea-says

 

[Stout]

Like I said, you are driving them into the arms of Trump and his MAGA movement with that argument: 'You guys consume too much, and your excessive shopping and consumption is what ruins the planet'.

Damn, I've seen a lot of weirdo MAGA arguments WRT climate change, but I've never seen that one. My all time favorite one is "climate has always changed" which is true (see snowball Earth) but totally moot WRT AGW.

You seem to think that voting is the solution to global warming.

Voting is the one and only solution world famous climate activist Greta Thunberg has offered up to her billions of followers. Other than that, she pretty much just shouts slogans about how we need to stop burning fossil fuels. But, hey, if you're willing to go up against Thunberg, then fill your boots.

 

[Stout]

Now, granted, this is nowhere near enough, but it is happening nonetheless. To state that a move towards renewables does not entail a move away from fossil fuels is simply wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1207...ns-fossil-fuel-demand-will-peak-soon-iea-says

Agreed. Things on the ground could be accelerated somewhat with the construction of renewables including hydro electric and nuclear but at least things are moving in the right direction as far as developed nations are concerned.

I came across this odd Guardian article yesterday where climate scientists admit to being to timid to state what they think needs to be done. They're willing to state that global emissions need to fall by 43% by decade's end yet fail to offer any sort of pathway as to how to achieve this pathway. They'd be better off just coming out and admitting the 1.5%C is a dead horse.

Archive link to Guardian Article

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why do you think they should vote for anybody?
You seem to think that voting is the solution to global warming.

You are the one who started the conversation about Biden losing young voters..

What was your point?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Allow me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/hilton/the-science-of-being-there/


https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/thinking-inside-box-why-virtual-meetings-generate-fewer-ideas

Just studies. Nothing about how much impact attending conferences has had on the climate problem..

That's what I want to hear about when it happens..

Perhaps setting an example about not wasting resources would make people pay more attention.

The solution it to get people who can really make a difference to take action.

 

[dann]

Damn, I've seen a lot of weirdo MAGA arguments WRT climate change, but I've never seen that one. My all time favorite one is "climate has always changed" which is true (see snowball Earth) but totally moot WRT AGW.

Why do you think the MAGA argument works so well when it is claimed that 'those greenies are coming to take away your cars, your stoves and steaks'?

It works because that's what they people are being told by large parts of the climate movement. People who live paycheck by paycheck are being told that they need to cut back, that they shouldn't consume so much, that they are the ones who ruin the planet because they own a ******* smartphone!
It's pretty easy for the fossil-fuel industry to point at those arguments and say, 'See?! Isn't that what we told you?'

This is the reason why they get sick and tired of those of you who are proud of collecting cans and bottles, sorting garbage and taking cold showers as if that would make global warming stop, while you're upset by anybody who won't listen to the austerity gospel.

You could instead be pointing out that the (few) amenties of modern life affordable by ordinary people are actually possible without CO₂ emissions: That you can shower as hot as you please as long as those showers are heated by means of wind and solar!

That's an argument the fossil-fuel industry doesn't want to hear. And it's an argument it can't really turn against the people who make it because it doesn't require that poor people give up the few conveniences they have access to!

I can see why this is difficult to understand for people whose main interest is to demonstrate their own holier-than-thou attitude and look down on poor people who don't feel tempted to join the austerity cult.

Voting is the one and only solution world famous climate activist Greta Thunberg has offered up to her billions of followers. Other than that, she pretty much just shouts slogans about how we need to stop burning fossil fuels. But, hey, if you're willing to go up against Thunberg, then fill your boots.

You seem to know so little about Thunberg that you imagine she spends her time running around voting and encouraging people to vote! From the very beginning she was the organizer of strikes and protests and encouraged people to strike and protest.
But then again, you are somebody who "pretty much just shouts slogans about" voting, so how would you know about this?

 

[dann]

You are the one who started the conversation about Biden losing young voters..

What was your point?

No, I pointed out that Joe Scarborough had come up with the peculiar argument for Biden that no president in history has drilled as much oil as the current administration.
And then I pointed out that this might not be an argument that will make young voters support him. (I think it occurred to his wife who didn't seem to be happy with Scarborough's rant, but that's another story.

I can see that it upsets you as a fan of fracking Biden, but it's not really my problem.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I can see that it upsets you as a fan of fracking Biden, but it's not really my problem.

You can see that?

Quite an accomplishment considering all the straw in front of you..

 

[Stout]

This is the reason why they get sick and tired of those of you who are proud of collecting cans and bottles, sorting garbage and taking cold showers as if that would make global warming stop, while you're upset by anybody who won't listen to the austerity gospel.

So what sort of timeline are you working on here? I'm talking about the few years left we have to avert 1.5C, something that's still being marked as a possibility and necessity whereas you appear to be gazing off into the distant future where everything is powered by wind and solar. Sure, maybe, but not in our lifetimes and well past the all-hell-is-going-to-break-loose tipping point.

Maybe there's some sort of scenario where half the population walks out of their offices, slips on a pair of coveralls and picks up tools in the wind/solar manufacturing and installation industries.

Picking up garbage and recycling are hot topics when it comes to dealing with children and climate change. Link.

Learning both at school and from her mom about topics like pollution in the oceans spurred classmate Ellie Mukai into ongoing campaigns of clearing garbage from neighbourhood schools, working with her friends.

"I want to teach people that even just little things like cleaning up around the neighborhood, reusing plastic bags and putting our recycling in the recycling [bins are important]," said Mukai, also 10.

I can see why this is difficult to understand for people whose main interest is to demonstrate their own holier-than-thou attitude and look down on poor people who don't feel tempted to join the austerity cult.

Who do you mean by poor people? The 10% of the global population that's producing all the emissions due to their lifestyles, or the 90% in the global south?

I'm sure the 90% is going to nod in agreement with the less affluent members of the 10% complaining about how they spend what they make.

You seem to know so little about Thunberg that you imagine she spends her time running around voting and encouraging people to vote! From the very beginning she was the organizer of strikes and protests and encouraged people to strike and protest.

Striking and protesting has worked out so well, hasn't it? Emissions keep rising but, hey, at least I complained about it and shook my fist at big oil.

 

[Myriad]

So what sort of timeline are you working on here? I'm talking about the few years left we have to avert 1.5C, something that's still being marked as a possibility and necessity whereas you appear to be gazing off into the distant future where everything is powered by wind and solar. Sure, maybe, but not in our lifetimes and well past the all-hell-is-going-to-break-loose tipping point.

Maybe there's some sort of scenario where half the population walks out of their offices, slips on a pair of coveralls and picks up tools in the wind/solar manufacturing and installation industries.

This.

The drugstore is two miles away. I can walk there, drive there, or advocate for my town to install safe bike lanes or provide public transit. I don't want to drive because that actively supports the unsustainable status quo. Dann doesn't want me to walk because that's a less desirable solution than having the public transit or the bike lanes. But I need my prescription this week, not fifteen years from now.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Video conferencing is OK, but nothing beats meeting in person for maximum impact.

Get back to us with some of that impact.

Just studies. Nothing about how much impact attending conferences has had on the climate problem..

That's what I want to hear about when it happens..

Wow! Look at those goalposts move!
So you've moved from asking whether video conferencing is worse than attending in person, to questioning whether conferences on climate change have any impact at all. Nice.
Oh, and 'just studies'? You realise this is the Science sub-forum, right? You're a short step away from dismissing something because 'it's just a theory'.

Moreover, you seem to be asking for something impossible to prove. You-now- want to know what impact climate conferences have had. Well, here's an article showing what we have achieved so far.
The problem is, to be able to assess what would have happened without any climate conferences, as a point of comparison, we would need to jump to an alternate universe, in which such meetings were not taking place. That might be problematic.