Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Cosmic Yak]

It makes a difference, yes, but it is not enough. If everybody did all the things that are being recommended, it still would not be enough. Not unless the energy, construction, agriculture and logistics industries also do their part.

Every single one of these industries is created and run by people. All of their output- products or services- are bought by people. These are not entities divorced from humanity: they are an extension of humanity. If the people who own and operate those industries act, then there will be a benefit. If their shareholders and consumers put pressure on them, they will act. If governments legislate in thast direction, they will act. The actions of all these entities are the result of the actions of individuals acting in concert. If everybody did these things, how could the world not change?

Which is why I have never, even once, said that individuals should not act. In fact, I have said - repeatedly - that they should.

No. You've said they could, but it won't make any difference. That's equivalent to saying they shouldn't, because it's pointless.

Perhaps you're reading what someone else is saying. Because I have not been saying what you're saying I'm saying.

Nope. I've quoted your exact words back at you, and also given my reasons: the consequence of your words would be to discourage anyone from doing anything. I do not subscribe to the fatalistic, gloomy inaction you are advocating.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I think it's more to do with the wish that technology is going to do all the heavy lifting and everyone can just carry on behaving pretty much the same as we've always done.

We need too be realistic. It is madness to argue that everyone should stop driving. My workplace is 40km from my house, out in the desert. Walking or cycling that distance, in 40-50C heat, would literally be life-threatening. Electric cars, OTOH, work, and do not involve digging up an entire university campus and transporting it closer to town.

 

[3point14]

We need too be realistic. It is madness to argue that everyone should stop driving. My workplace is 40km from my house, out in the desert. Walking or cycling that distance, in 40-50C heat, would literally be life-threatening. Electric cars, OTOH, work, and do not involve digging up an entire university campus and transporting it closer to town.

And this is why we're screwed.

I agree, it's madness for you to not drive to work.

It's also madness for you, and everyone else in the same situation, to not stop driving to work.

What we need is infrastructure and circumstances that would make you not driving to work not be a crazy suggestion.

But you can't get there from here...

 

[arthwollipot]

Every single one of these industries is created and run by people. All of their output- products or services- are bought by people. These are not entities divorced from humanity: they are an extension of humanity. If the people who own and operate those industries act, then there will be a benefit. If their shareholders and consumers put pressure on them, they will act. If governments legislate in thast direction, they will act. The actions of all these entities are the result of the actions of individuals acting in concert. If everybody did these things, how could the world not change?

Yeah? How's that been working out so far?

No. You've said they could, but it won't make any difference. That's equivalent to saying they shouldn't, because it's pointless.

I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.

Why are you still having trouble with this? I'm being as clear as I possibly can.

Nope. I've quoted your exact words back at you...

You've quoted my words and then said that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying. That's dishonest.

...and also given my reasons: the consequence of your words would be to discourage anyone from doing anything. I do not subscribe to the fatalistic, gloomy inaction you are advocating.

Such fatalistic, gloomy inaction is only in your head. I've said that people should do their best to make their world better. I've said it consistently and repeatedly, and you have consistently and repeatedly reported that I'm saying the opposite of that. You should be better. I'm not angry, just disappointed.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.
<snip>

Industry responds to demand. If people stopped "upgrading" tech items like phones and TVs as frequently the environmental damage of those industries would go down.

Where governments need to step in is to stop industry artificially creating demand through planned obsolescence and marketing.

Imagine a world where men didn't buy cars as status symbols, but merely as tools to perform a function. (Not suggesting you do this, BTW)

A world where people asked themselves "why do I want this thing?" before consuming would probably be a lot more sustainable.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yeah? How's that been working out so far?

Better than you might think. Better than you do think, actually:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/08/producers-keep-sustainable-practices-secret
https://www.construction21.org/arti...e-construction-industry-is-going-greener.html
https://blog.marketresearch.com/5-industries-benefiting-from-going-green
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996922011267

I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.

All you need to do, then, is quote where you said that. Because that's the first time I can remember you saying that.

Why are you still having trouble with this? I'm being as clear as I possibly can.

No, you're not. You haven't been saying what you claim you've been saying, and then complaining that I haven't understood what you are saying, because you didn't say it.

You've quoted my words and then said that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying. That's dishonest.

Please show where what I've said is the opposite of what you've said. I have pointed out the consequences of following your advice: if you can't accept that, that's not me being dishonest, that's you being unwilling to accept the results of your comments.

Such fatalistic, gloomy inaction is only in your head. I've said that people should do their best to make their world better. I've said it consistently and repeatedly, and you have consistently and repeatedly reported that I'm saying the opposite of that. You should be better. I'm not angry, just disappointed.

Again, please repost where you said that. Because I must have missed these 'repeated' instances.
I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I need the evidence first.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And this is why we're screwed.

I agree, it's madness for you to not drive to work.

It's also madness for you, and everyone else in the same situation, to not stop driving to work.

What we need is infrastructure and circumstances that would make you not driving to work not be a crazy suggestion.

But you can't get there from here...

Two words: electric cars.

 

[3point14]

Two words: electric cars.

See Ivor's post above.

The problem is that the numbers don't add up. Renewable sources of energy are defuse, so we are going to have to find ways to use a lot less energy along with technological change.

One of the easiest ways to reduce energy usage is to travel less. Every time someone drives somewhere, they're not just spending the energy to move 100Kg of person, they're also moving 1000Kg of car too.

 

[Stout]

Two words: electric cars.

This is where you want to start talking about 15 minute cities, active transportation and referring to roads as car sewers, if you really want to throw down your eco creds.

Anyways, from the BBC link in post #1231

Urgent action to cut carbon emissions can still slow warming, scientists say.

Now that climate scientists have come out and said they want to write policy (at COP 28) maybe they could do us a favour and let us know what this policy they want to write might look like. We've all been patient with this endless Chicken Little routine and I'm sure these guys have spent countless hours hanging around the lab proposing how "we" can actually meet the conditions set out in the Paris Accords.

Urgent action, what does that actually mean in the context of pretty much everything tried to date has been an abysmal failure?

 

[arthwollipot]

All you need to do, then, is quote where you said that. Because that's the first time I can remember you saying that.

Sure. Happy to help.

Sure, doing all these things will make everybody better off...

Yes, personal austerity on an individual level is a good idea. It has benefits.

Do your personal bit, absolutely.

It's not nothing, and it should be done.

There can be a point to doing something that will not save the world. It might make your personal life better. It might help to clean up your local environment. It might encourage others to help.

Just because it's not what will save the world doesn't mean that it isn't still worth doing.

 

[arthwollipot]

Industry responds to demand. If people stopped "upgrading" tech items like phones and TVs as frequently the environmental damage of those industries would go down.

Not the industry I was referring to. As I explained previously...

Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.

Fortunately, there are those who are working on these problems.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Not the industry I was referring to. As I explained previously...

Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.

Fortunately, there are those who are working on these problems.

The way to 'shut down' the oil and gas industry is very simple - stop consuming their products.

New ways of producing steel are already being applied.

'Low carbon' concrete is a thing now, reducing its carbon footprint by up to 80%. We can cut back on it too, and recycle. Concrete accounts for 4-8% of CO₂ emissions. That's less some other sources, but everywhere we can reduce it helps.

Global travel? We know what to do there - don't fly!

Distribution industries benefit from cleaner transport too - except when transporting oil and gas.

All this stuff is being addressed as we speak. But it will be much easier if we do our bit by reducing demand.

But will we? That's the real problem. Nobody wants to change their lifestyle no matter how much harm it might be doing. So we push it onto someone else, a convenient scapegoat we can blame for things not getting done.

"Oh no, it's not my fault that oil companies produce petrol for the engine that automakers put in my car! I mean, I would switch to an electric car - but they cost money and don't have the range I might someday need! And now the nasty government is forcing me to buy one!"

You can embrace change and be part of the solution, or resist it and be the problem. Fine. Be a freeloader who expects someone else to pick up the tab, just don't expect any sympathy from me when the **** hits the fan.

 

[arthwollipot]

I refer my esteemed colleague to my previous post #1254 in which I repeat yet again that people should be doing the little things, because they will make a genuine difference.

My point is that we can't just simply shut down these big industries. If we stopped burning all coal tomorrow, the world's electricity grid would be in big trouble. Our civilisation is literally built out of steel and concrete. Shutting these industries down tomorrow would cripple us. Stop flying? Well, I don't think people should be flying everywhere either so I'll give you that. But stop the global shipping industry and you will learn just how much stuff you can't get any more - and it's not just luxuries.

We are learning how to fix these problems, but it's a slow process. We can't just turn our civilisation around on the spot. Meanwhile, keep on practicing personal austerity. Recycle your bottles where that's an option, drive an electric car if you can afford one. Sail to visit your family rather than flying. Or just never travel more than a few miles from where you live, the way humans didn't for centuries.

You won't be saving the world, but you might be making your life and the lives of the people close to you better. And you'll feel good about it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Sure. Happy to help.

You know, I was about to apologise to you- until I checked the context of those posts you quoted.
All of them- every single one of them- is followed by a caveat saying there's no point, because it won't make any difference.
Which not only was my entire point- that you are discouraging people from taking individual action- it's also rather naughty of you to snip of that all-important context.

 

[arthwollipot]

All of them- every single one of them- is followed by a caveat saying there's no point, because it won't make any difference.

That is an outright lie. You should be ashamed.

What I have said is "it's not what will save the world" which is very different from "there's no point because it won't make any difference".

 

[arthwollipot]

It would be a little bit ridiculous if I said what you're saying I'm saying, which is "Yes you should do it because it's not pointless but also it's pointless". Don't you think?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Now that climate scientists have come out and said they want to write policy (at COP 28) maybe they could do us a favour and let us know what this policy they want to write might look like.

Scientists can't write policy. They can advise politicians on what policy to write, but they can't do it themselves. If politicians don't follow their advice it's because they don't think it's viable or they don't think their constituents will accept it (or they're in the pockets of Big Oil ). Not much scientists can do about that except reiterate the consequences of inaction.

We've all been patient with this endless Chicken Little routine and I'm sure these guys have spent countless hours hanging around the lab proposing how "we" can actually meet the conditions set out in the Paris Accords.

Not all of us have just been sitting on our backsides waiting for someone else to come up with a plan (that we then reject for 'reasons').

Urgent action, what does that actually mean in the context of pretty much everything tried to date has been an abysmal failure?

Not true. A lot of progress has been made. Unfortunately a lot of people are trying to put a spanner in the works - ordinary people who could accelerate progress but are stymieing it instead.

Turns out the most important 'action' needed was getting hearts and minds on the right track. That's the real 'failure' that needs addressing.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

My point is that we can't just simply shut down these big industries. If we stopped burning all coal tomorrow, the world's electricity grid would be in big trouble. Our civilisation is literally built out of steel and concrete. Shutting these industries down tomorrow would cripple us.

Denier talking point #96 - it's too hard.

Nobody's saying we have to do it by tomorrow. But the pace could be a lot faster than it is.

stop the global shipping industry and you will learn just how much stuff you can't get any more - and it's not just luxuries.

I grew up in a time when products took 3 months to get from the UK to New Zealand. It wasn't the end of the World. I wish we could go back to those times, when the pace of life wasn't so hectic and people didn't need instant gratification.

Clipper route

The clipper route was the traditional route derived from the Brouwer Route and sailed by clipper ships between Europe and the Far East, Australia and New Zealand. The route ran from west to east through the Southern Ocean, to make use of the strong westerly winds of the Roaring Forties...

The clipper ships bound for Australia and New Zealand would call at a variety of ports. A ship sailing from Plymouth to Sydney, for example, would cover around 13,750 miles (22,130 km); a fast time for this passage would be around 100 days. Cutty Sark made the fastest passage on this route by a clipper, in 72 days. Thermopylae made the slightly shorter passage from London to Melbourne, 13,150 miles (21,160 km), in just 61 days in 1868–1869.

If they could do it in just 2 months back in 1869, imagine what a modern sailing ship could do!

We are learning how to fix these problems, but it's a slow process.

It's only slow because nobody wants to rock the boat. Our precious economy cannae take it, Captain!

We can't just turn our civilisation around on the spot. Meanwhile, keep on practicing personal austerity. Recycle your bottles where that's an option, drive an electric car if you can afford one. Sail to visit your family rather than flying. Or just never travel more than a few miles from where you live, the way humans didn't for centuries.

That's what I'm doing. BTW my 12 year old second-hand electric car didn't cost any more than a similar gas car.

Now that we have the internet it's a lot easier to stay in touch without having to make long trips. Back in the 1960s our relatives would visit us once a year. The trip was a pretty big deal. Occasionally we would ring them and have to shout into the phone due to the losses over that distance (360km). These days people won't buy a car if it can't do it at 120km/h all the way without stopping (reason #2 why they will never buy an EV).

You won't be saving the world, but you might be making your life and the lives of the people close to you better. And you'll feel good about it.

Not by myself no, but if many others followed my example we would.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not by myself no, but if many others followed my example we would.

My point is, unless capitalistic industry joins in, no you wouldn't.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

My point is, unless capitalistic industry joins in, no you wouldn't.

Is your argument that consumers are slaves to industry? I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning;. The choices consumers have are somewhat limited by what the market has on offer.