Cont: Global warming discussion V

Cosmic Yak said:
OK. I don't. What now?
Click to expand...
You're using the internet, so your lifestyle is killing the planet, maybe?

Not gonna lie, I find much of the attempts to blame either supply-side or demand-side on the general topic here to be dumb. Both are important parts of the equation, though it would also be hard to say that they make up the whole equation. There are certainly are notable differences in how that works, of course.

Also, making the perfect the indiscriminate enemy of everything is just dumb, in general.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Not gonna lie, I find much of the attempts to blame either supply-side or demand-side on the general topic here to be dumb. Both are important parts of the equation, though it would also be hard to say that they make up the whole equation. There are certainly are notable differences in how that works, of course.

Also, making the perfect the indiscriminate enemy of everything is just dumb, in general.
Click to expand...
Team demand-side is woefully under represented. We're like the oppressed minority, or something.

We could have avoided this 1.5C everyone is ranting about had we kept the restrictions in place during the pandemic (2020) and matched them with equal reductions every year until now. If you want to see significant reductions, there's the first place to look.
 
Stout said:
Team demand-side is woefully under represented. We're like the oppressed minority, or something.

We could have avoided this 1.5C everyone is ranting about had we kept the restrictions in place during the pandemic (2020) and matched them with equal reductions every year until now. If you want to see significant reductions, there's the first place to look.
Click to expand...
Given the nature of those restrictions? That sounds like a pipe dream. As for Team Demand-side, the big problem with focusing on that side, specifically, is that it is quite unrealistic to expect any results at all until the bad behavior coming from the supply-side is curtailed. It's not that it's wrong to recognize the role of the demand side in what is going on, it's just that the supply side actively using their concentrated power to prevent as much real action to address the issues at hand as they can is a serious obstacle in the way of sufficient demand-side action.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
If you're living in a developed nation, then your lifestyle is killing the planet.
Click to expand...

That lifestyle isn't killing the planet. It's killing certain people and communities who are particularly vulnerable and/or unlucky, and (in the longer term) it's killing the systems that are making that lifestyle possible.

One problem is, it's likely to do a lot of the first kind of killing before the second kind tallies up enough damage to make a difference.
 
Stout said:
Then start demanding reparations from developed countries. That was what CoP 29 and The Loss and Damage Fund was all about.
Click to expand...

How will reparations slow or reverse global warming?
Stout said:
And stop burning fossil fuels anyways, you know, bad.
Click to expand...

Once again: you know absolutely nothing about my lifestyle. If you stopped telling me what I should do, and instead asked what I am doing, we might have a more productive discussion.
It's funny, because not so long ago, you were calling for people to make changes in their own lifestyles, to help address this problem. Now you seem to have abandoned that, in favour of castigating people for merely having the audacity to be alive. Or, as in this post here, "demanding" things. What kind of effect do you think my "demands" will make on the developed world? What form should these "demands" take? A strongly-worded letter? Standing outside with a placard? How is this any different from the gesture politics of eco-activists of which you have been so derisive?
 
Myriad said:
That lifestyle isn't killing the planet. It's killing certain people and communities who are particularly vulnerable and/or unlucky, and (in the longer term) it's killing the systems that are making that lifestyle possible.

One problem is, it's likely to do a lot of the first kind of killing before the second kind tallies up enough damage to make a difference.
Click to expand...
Exactly. "Killing the planet" is ridiculous hyperbole. I have been waiting for someone to call this out.
 
Aridas said:
Given the nature of those restrictions? That sounds like a pipe dream. As for Team Demand-side, the big problem with focusing on that side, specifically, is that it is quite unrealistic to expect any results at all until the bad behavior coming from the supply-side is curtailed. It's not that it's wrong to recognize the role of the demand side in what is going on, it's just that the supply side actively using their concentrated power to prevent as much real action to address the issues at hand as they can is a serious obstacle in the way of sufficient demand-side action.
Click to expand...
Agreed, 1.5C is a pipe dream but it's what was agreed upon at CoP by the people who make the big bucks. Why? I have no idea. Possibly to spur on demand-side reduction, possibly to get governments at all levels to take action, possibly for photo ops. Or a combination of all 3. Demand-side is what spurs on supply-side which is undeniable given the sheer volume of information out there on the negative effects of those demand-side actions. I mean, you can try to limit supply side by passing laws banning fossil fuel advertising (The Hague) but really, is that going to stop anybody from jumping of a cruise ship if that's how they've decided they want to spend their time off?
 
Myriad said:
That lifestyle isn't killing the planet. It's killing certain people and communities who are particularly vulnerable and/or unlucky, and (in the longer term) it's killing the systems that are making that lifestyle possible.

One problem is, it's likely to do a lot of the first kind of killing before the second kind tallies up enough damage to make a difference.
Click to expand...
Yes, the killing the planet phrasing is meant to apply to the second kind.

 
Stout said:
Agreed, 1.5C is a pipe dream
Click to expand...

More specifically, keeping those restrictions in place for completely different reasons than they existed in the first place would be a pipe dream. A rather destructive one that guarantees severe backlash and general harm. It's not even remotely a suggestion that can be called reasonable and when that is the level of your focus on the demand-side arguments, it's nigh impossible to treat your position as worthwhile.

Stout said:
but it's what was agreed upon at CoP by the people who make the big bucks. Why? I have no idea. Possibly to spur on demand-side reduction, possibly to get governments at all levels to take action, possibly for photo ops. Or a combination of all 3. Demand-side is what spurs on supply-side which is undeniable given the sheer volume of information out there on the negative effects of those demand-side actions. I mean, you can try to limit supply side by passing laws banning fossil fuel advertising (The Hague) but really, is that going to stop anybody from jumping of a cruise ship if that's how they've decided they want to spend their time off?
Click to expand...
As noted before, the demand-side is important. Pretending that addressing supply-side issues is just limiting advertising is rather questionable, at best, though. Before going further, though, the nature of the two sides should be noted. The demand side is decentralized to the extreme. Each person matters, certainly, but the individual is of little relevance compared the larger population and various forces that act on and affect the population. Meanwhile, the power on the supply side is far more centralized. They exert their far, far more concentrated power to effect changes to their benefit and neutralize the power that the demand side actually wields in practice in various ways. Government? We nearly had notable government action to rein in the worst of things many decades ago that the supply side derailed here in the US and their obstruction has continued in various ways throughout. That's a situation that's hardly limited to the US, of course. The people? The supply side has knowingly pushed deceit, doubt, and division really hard for a long time to manipulate the population and neutralize the actual power that the demand side could bring to bear to cause change. Given the power dynamics at work, focusing most of one's attention on individuals on the demand side is honestly rather baffling for anyone who truly desires action.

With all that said, one of the particularly notable angles of all that deceit, doubt, and division that the supply side's pushed is indeed to shove off all responsibility to the demand side. In short, "They made me do it!" says the gaslighter who all but forced the situation to happen and then plays the victim. I'm not much a fan of gaslighting, of course, and your rhetoric seems to have much in common with the supply side's gaslighting.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Exactly. "Killing the planet" is ridiculous hyperbole. I have been waiting for someone to call this out.
Click to expand...

Happy to oblige.

Aridas (like dann a few pages back) does have a point about self-interested bad actors on the "supply" side interfering with concerted action. The problem is, from ground level, stopping them from doing that is just as intractable a problem as reducing demand in the face of that interference. Achieving either aim is doubtful unless someone with that agenda acquires dictatorial power.

The bad-actor industries and bad-actor politicians and the complacent public, the supply side and the demand side, aren't opponents of one another, they're an axis of common interest. This includes the majority of the developed world and most climate activists. Do hordes of oligarchs showing up in private jets and yachts for global climate conferences seem incongruous? They're actually not.

Who are their opponents? For all practical purposes, no one. The poor who consume and pollute less by necessity have no leverage on the supply or demand sides. A tiny contingent of fringe climate passivists practices austerity primarily to escape a status quo they see as increasingly demanding, unhealthy, and/or fragile, not to try to rescue it (or the planet).
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Happy to oblige.

Aridas (like dann a few pages back) does have a point about self-interested bad actors on the "supply" side interfering with concerted action. The problem is, from ground level, stopping them from doing that is just as intractable a problem as reducing demand in the face of that interference. Achieving either aim is doubtful unless someone with that agenda acquires dictatorial power.

The bad-actor industries and bad-actor politicians and the complacent public, the supply side and the demand side, aren't opponents of one another, they're an axis of common interest. This includes the majority of the developed world and most climate activists. Do hordes of oligarchs showing up in private jets and yachts for global climate conferences seem incongruous? They're actually not.

Who are their opponents? For all practical purposes, no one. The poor who consume and pollute less by necessity have no leverage on the supply or demand sides. A tiny contingent of fringe climate passivists practices austerity primarily to escape a status quo they see as increasingly demanding, unhealthy, and/or fragile, not to try to rescue it (or the planet).
Click to expand...
Just to keep it clear, incidentally, as I said back in post 1881 -
Aridas said:
Not gonna lie, I find much of the attempts to blame either supply-side or demand-side on the general topic here to be dumb. Both are important parts of the equation, though it would also be hard to say that they make up the whole equation.
Click to expand...
The problem at hand very much does involve both "sides" in the formulation of supply-side versus demand-side. With that said, personally, I find it far more realistic to first focus on action to address the overtly bad actions of those on the supply side. Deceit, corruption, and the total disregard of the human cost in their pursuit of gains are all examples of things that are entirely fair game to go after without needing to resort to dictatorship. Those are things that they should have been held accountable for all along, though. It's certainly not a full solution, of course, but dealing with some of the biggest dishonest obstacles at hand would do much to clear the way for efforts to deal with everything else in upright ways that also don't require dictatorships to accomplish.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
More specifically, keeping those restrictions in place for completely different reasons than they existed in the first place would be a pipe dream. A rather destructive one that guarantees severe backlash and general harm. It's not even remotely a suggestion that can be called reasonable and when that is the level of your focus on the demand-side arguments, it's nigh impossible to treat your position as worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Of course, but that was what people were practically begging for back in 2019, when 1.5C was being described as end times. The public got a taste, just a taste of what it would realistically take to hit that target and rightly freaked. I suppose there was some dream brewing in the background that suddenly, somehow, all this wind and solar would appear as "other people" downed their current tools and transitioned into the renewable energy industry and overnight everything became electrified. All it would take is the government(s) to snap their fingers and make it happen.

I just used advertising as an example of supply-side influence. There's many more for sure. The big problem with the demand side is they pretty much don't care. Sure everybody's aware and educated however they're going to drive 10 hours to get to that resort in the nature beauty spot and chow down on imported seafood while they're there. Post a few nature-is-wonderful to Facebook and suddenly they're much more in tune with the natural world. Pity it won't look the same to their grandchildren.

Were there no demand then supply side would be forced to listen to that speech about buggy whips in whatever movie that was.
 
Stout said:
Of course, but that was what people were practically begging for back in 2019, when 1.5C was being described as end times. The public got a taste, just a taste of what it would realistically take to hit that target and rightly freaked.
Click to expand...

*raises his eyebrows* Except for the part where what happened really isn't that. Among the ways that could get the world there, that was one of the worst ways. Not least because it was unsustainable without doing massive harm.

Still, it's perhaps worth pointing out that it sure sounds like you're sure pushing the "no action should be taken by anyone" line again here. Likely with the caveat that if someone's concerned, it's all on them to change their personal behavior if they want anything to happen.

Stout said:
I suppose there was some dream brewing in the background that suddenly, somehow, all this wind and solar would appear as "other people" downed their current tools and transitioned into the renewable energy industry and overnight everything became electrified. All it would take is the government(s) to snap their fingers and make it happen.
Click to expand...

There certainly are fantasies floating about with unrealistic timelines and courses of action. That doesn't mean that that's all there is.

Stout said:
I just used advertising as an example of supply-side influence. There's many more for sure. The big problem with the demand side is they pretty much don't care. Sure everybody's aware and educated however they're going to drive 10 hours to get to that resort in the nature beauty spot and chow down on imported seafood while they're there. Post a few nature-is-wonderful to Facebook and suddenly they're much more in tune with the natural world. Pity it won't look the same to their grandchildren.
Click to expand...

Examples of such certainly do exist. That hardly means that that's a significant chunk of the total, however much those trying to undermine action love to try to make a big deal out of that when they can. Much of the demand side indeed don't care, of course, but those making a big deal of what you just tried to tend to be in the "dragging everyone down" crowd. "Here's an example of a hypocrite! See? They're all hypocrites!"

Stout said:
Were there no demand then supply side would be forced to listen to that speech about buggy whips in whatever movie that was.
Click to expand...

This is still sounding like gaslighting to me. "Oh those poor maligned supply siders. They're just giving people what they're forced to give them." Nevermind that that isn't actually among the main real complaints about them.
 
Last edited:
Is the Climate Clock still a big deal? It used to be a big deal. It's at just over four years to hit zero emissions or it's doomsday, or something.

Of course hitting these targets is going to do massive harm. That's been my whole point all along, but people were begging for it. Some still are but either they found other things to complain about or they grew brains. I'm making a put up, or shut up argument here. Want the impossible (1.5) ? Do the improbable, stop burning fossil fuels.

Or we could hope they write down some more big numbers at CoP 30 and we can, you know, talk about them.

Face it, climate warriors, it's over. You lost. Global emissions are still rising so if you want a government solution then shift to demanding, and voting for, adaptation and resilience.
 
Stout said:
Is the Climate Clock still a big deal? It used to be a big deal. It's at just over four years to hit zero emissions or it's doomsday, or something.

Of course hitting these targets is going to do massive harm. That's been my whole point all along, but people were begging for it. Some still are but either they found other things to complain about or they grew brains. I'm making a put up, or shut up argument here. Want the impossible (1.5) ? Do the improbable, stop burning fossil fuels.

Or we could hope they write down some more big numbers at CoP 30 and we can, you know, talk about them.

Face it, climate warriors, it's over. You lost. Global emissions are still rising so if you want a government solution then shift to demanding, and voting for, adaptation and resilience.
Click to expand...

Time left to prevent warming from being over 1.5°C.

Oh look! You've made another disingenuous argument.
 
Stout said:
Face it, climate warriors, it's over. You lost. Global emissions are still rising
Click to expand...


You know this is not the full picture. Why do you keep doing this?


Stout said:
so if you want a government solution then shift to demanding, and voting for, adaptation and resilience.
Click to expand...

Strange, because only a couple of pages back you were saying that only authoritarian regimes could push forward renewables. Which is it?
 
Stout said:
Is the Climate Clock still a big deal? It used to be a big deal. It's at just over four years to hit zero emissions or it's doomsday, or something.

Of course hitting these targets is going to do massive harm. That's been my whole point all along, but people were begging for it. Some still are but either they found other things to complain about or they grew brains. I'm making a put up, or shut up argument here. Want the impossible (1.5) ? Do the improbable, stop burning fossil fuels.

Or we could hope they write down some more big numbers at CoP 30 and we can, you know, talk about them.

Face it, climate warriors, it's over. You lost. Global emissions are still rising so if you want a government solution then shift to demanding, and voting for, adaptation and resilience.
Click to expand...
What is there to say? Thanks for coming clean about how very much you're disgusted by caring.

Hitting those targets is going to do massive harm? Your arguments to that end have so far been contrived and pathetic. More akin to arguing against surgery in a hospital by talking about how bad stab wounds are than anything remotely reasonable.

Also, well... that government shift to adaptation and resilience? That's something of a red herring in the US. The parties that we have are starkly different when it comes to climate change, after all. The Republican Party pretty consistently acts to make it worse and encourage corruption all around at the behest of your beloved supply-side forces. The Democratic Party pushes for various action to limit the damage and prepare for the future. That very much includes various efforts at adaptation and resilience, though Republicans work to sabotage that, too. How much trust should anyone interested in making things better put in the arguments of saboteurs?
 
Last edited:
You may call it caring, I prefer the term performative ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

If Americans are sooooooo concerned about climate change, they why did Trump get elected?
 
Stout said:
You may call it caring, I prefer the term performative ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

If Americans are sooooooo concerned about climate change, they why did Trump get elected?
Click to expand...
Some say that there's no dumb questions. Inane questions tend to make that less and less believable.
 
Stout said:
It means far less people actually "care" about climate change than you'd like to imagine.
Click to expand...
Firstly, once again, America is not the whole world.
Now, let's look at your response to the problem of global warming:
  • CO2 emissions from the CoP meetings are a closely guarded secret.
  • Only authoritarian regimes use hydroelectric power on a large scale.
  • Canada is heavily reliant on fossil fuels.
  • Attempts to reduce emissions are not working.
Not one of these statements is true, yet you continue to repeat them despite evidence-based correction.
Then there's your ambivalence over whether or not individual action can help. You started by saying it could, then said that everyone living in developed countries was contributing to the problem, which must mean that nothing people in those countries are doing is having any effect. You want people to demand that their governments take action, but dismiss those demands as mere talking, and also dismiss the efforts of those governments as empty posturing.
I am left completely baffled as to what it is you would like to see happen, and how this can be achieved. In the meantime, I will continue to take action myself to reduce my carbon footprint (actions you have not once asked me about, by the way), as I await some kind of clarification from you. It would also be nice if you would stop handwaving away evidence, and base your conclusions on facts rather than feelings.
 
Stout said:
You may call it caring, I prefer the term performative ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

If Americans are sooooooo concerned about climate change, they why did Trump get elected?
Click to expand...
It's true, we failed the world by electing him, for many reasons. :(
 
Stout said:
It means far less people actually "care" about climate change than you'd like to imagine.
Click to expand...

Asking inane questions means that we may as well treat you as inane. Seriously, what nonsensical caricature are you actually trying to poke holes in, anyways? It sounds like you want to whine about some imaginary image that the US as a whole is made of climate saints, nevermind that the political class of the right-wing in the US, bought and paid for by those supply-siders that you defend, are possibly the most influentially and rabidly anti-climate action group in the world, overall. Yet you keep seeking to shift all responsibility and accountability away from the actual main culprits and those driving them.

Hercules56 said:
It's true, we failed the world by electing him, for many reasons. :(
Click to expand...
Indeed, the US did fail both the US and the world by electing him, for many reasons. That doesn't make Stout's attempted comeback any less vapid.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Asking inane questions means that we may as well treat you as inane. Seriously, what nonsensical caricature are you actually trying to poke holes in, anyways? It sounds like you want to whine about some imaginary image that the US as a whole is made of climate saints, nevermind that the political class of the right-wing in the US, bought and paid for by those supply-siders that you defend, are possibly the most influentially and rabidly anti-climate action group in the world, overall. Yet you keep seeking to shift all responsibility and accountability away from the actual main culprits and those driving them.
Click to expand...
Jesus Murphy, I've had plates of spaghetti that are less convoluted that that post. But go ahead, continue to whinge about the supply side and ignore the fact that pretty much everybody loves and lives the glorious benefits of fossil fuels if it makes you feel better about loving and living the benefits.
 
Uh oh, looks like the climate clock needs an update.

www.bbc.com

Three years left to limit warming to 1.5C, top scientists warn

The Earth could be doomed to breach a key climate target in as little as three years, scientists warn.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

They argue that "rapid and stringent" emissions cuts are more important than ever.
Click to expand...
Hope this doesn't spur on some sort of carbon tax, better fill up the yacht just to be on the safe side and if I go through 250 gallons this weekend, any resulting emissions aren't my fault, I'll just blame supply side and call it a day. :)
 
Stout said:
Uh oh, looks like the climate clock needs an update.

www.bbc.com

Three years left to limit warming to 1.5C, top scientists warn

The Earth could be doomed to breach a key climate target in as little as three years, scientists warn.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com


Hope this doesn't spur on some sort of carbon tax, better fill up the yacht just to be on the safe side and if I go through 250 gallons this weekend, any resulting emissions aren't my fault, I'll just blame supply side and call it a day. :)
Click to expand...
Have you taken any steps yourself to reduce your use of fossil fuels?
 
Stout said:
Jesus Murphy, I've had plates of spaghetti that are less convoluted that that post. But go ahead, continue to whinge about the supply side and ignore the fact that pretty much everybody loves and lives the glorious benefits of fossil fuels if it makes you feel better about loving and living the benefits.
Click to expand...
Yeah, treating your words as both inane and in no way actually interested in climate action seems to be well-founded. To listen to you, everyone who so much as claims to care at all is actually a horrible offender and hypocrite. Even if they could prove that they're not, that they live in the same country as any horrible offenders is enough to condemn them, under your logic.
 
Last edited:
Awwww, sounds like someone is a little peeved that the favored bitch about the supply side while sucking back lots of fossil fuels model is taking some kicks to the gonads. That argument does generate the Facebook asspats, I'll admit that.

It's that argument, the supply side argument, not my burn less fossil fuels one that's the inane one. I'll submit the miserable failure of "climate action" as evidence.

Maybe read up a little on the concept of climate justice.
 
Stout said:
Awwww, sounds like someone is a little peeved that the favored bitch about the supply side while sucking back lots of fossil fuels model is taking some kicks to the gonads. That argument does generate the Facebook asspats, I'll admit that.

It's that argument, the supply side argument, not my burn less fossil fuels one that's the inane one. I'll submit the miserable failure of "climate action" as evidence.

Maybe read up a little on the concept of climate justice.
Click to expand...
Bless your heart, you dear, dear soul.
 
Aridas said:
In a different direction than usual for this thread -

Europe has installed so many renewable energy sources that it is now facing an unusual problem: electricity is too cheap.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Australia. So much excess energy is being transferred from solar panels to electricity producers that it can’t be used during daylight hours. The miniscule feed in tariff (something like 3 cents per kilowatt hour) will soon disappear.

Meanwhile our city of Melbourne has just had its second hottest winter night in a row. At 8pm, it’s 18C. It rarely gets that hot at night in summer.

Yes I know weather is not climate, but enough extreme weather observations around the world is.
 
lionking said:
Meanwhile our city of Melbourne has just had its second hottest winter night in a row. At 8pm, it’s 18C. It rarely gets that hot at night in summer.
Click to expand...
On the other hand...

www.weatherzone.com.au

Canberra endures coldest run of nights in 60 years

Temperatures have plummeted to bone-chilling lows in Canberra over the past week, with the city just registering its coldest run of nights since 1965.
www.weatherzone.com.au www.weatherzone.com.au
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom