Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Aridas]

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.

One could also point out how capitalistic marketing is pretty explicitly about increasing consumption and immense amounts of capital and effort are invested into making that happen. The consumers are not blameless when it comes to that angle, of course, but it's not particularly reasonable to blame the consumers while also selectively ignoring major underlying drivers for that consumption.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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?

OK. Look. I have little interest in going over the same posts again and again, while we argue about whether you said what you said, or not.
How about this? From your later clarifications, it would seem that this is what you actually are trying to say:
One person acting alone to select choices that are more sustainable and better for the environment will not have a big effect. That will only happen if enough people make those choices. The only way to get from not enough people to enough people is if individuals start to make those changes themselves. The cumulative effect will be to effect useful, measurable changes on a global scale.
How does that sound? Can we agree on this?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

One could also point out how capitalistic marketing is pretty explicitly about increasing consumption and immense amounts of capital and effort are invested into making that happen. The consumers are not blameless when it comes to that angle, of course, but it's not particularly reasonable to blame the consumers while also selectively ignoring major underlying drivers for that consumption.

I often wonder who are worse: the people who make harmful products, or the ones ("creatives") who try to convince people to buy the products by making them appear healthy, fun, stylish, sophisticated and/or environmentally friendly.

Forget Oppenheimer, the true destroyers of worlds are the people who work for ad agencies.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's some information arthwollipot may find interesting:

Technology can provide energy efficiency measures that help combat climate change, but “consumption (and to a lesser extent population) growth have mostly outrun any beneficial effects of changes in technology over the past few decades,” according to a June paper. The research concluded that it is not enough simply to “green” consumption by buying more sustainably produced goods—it is essential to reduce consumption. This is because 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions comes solely from the production of the things we use and buy every day.

That's the elephant in the room that NO politician is going to talk about.

I wonder how many perfectly functional PCs are going to end up being dumped because they're "not ready" for Windows 11? Will this be counted in Microsoft's environmental footprint? To be fair the whole technology industry is as bad.

Many years ago I read an article in an electronics magazine with a title something like "The Logarithmic Law of Usefulness". The premise of the article was that linear improvements in usability of items are correlated with an exponential increase in the complexity of the underlying technology.

A great example of the correlation between linear usability improvement and exponential increase in complexity is a manual switch compared to a smart switch to control a bulb (or other appliance).

A manual switch needs some plastic and metal, will last decades and function 100% reliably. Alas, with a manual switch you can't turn your hall light on and off from the other side of the planet without phoning your butler.

A smart switch is typically implemented in a way that needs several processors running (tens of?) thousands of lines of code and often a (cloud-based) server. It will turn the appliance on and off with a reliability somewhere between 50-95%, but require you to upgrade your phone eventually because an update to the 200 megabyte-sized lightswitch app will only work with Android version 100 and newer. After a few years the company may discontinue the cloud part of the service making the product either useless or severely limiting its functionality. There are ways around this last problem (Z-Wave / Zigbee sticks, Home Assistant running on a local machine, etc.), but most are beyond the technical capabilities, interest and spare time of most of the population who just want to turn some lights on and off. They will either go back to a manual switch or be suckered into buying the next greatest smart product that still doesn't work reliably because even the people who created it don't understand how all its parts work.

 

[Stout]

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.

Scientists want to write policy though. See here. It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.

Five lead authors of IPCC reports told the Guardian that scientists should be given the right to make policy prescriptions and, potentially, to oversee their implementation by the 195 states signed up to the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).

No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk. I want to see what walking the talk would look like and climate scientests have nothing to lose here. I've seen it said (paraphrased) When climate scientists start living like there's a climate conference, then maybe we'll start listening to them.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.

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

Yes, this is what I've been saying all along and it's a direct result of, to put it charitably clumsy climate activism. Locally, we spent millions of dollars closing streets and making elevated, protected bike lanes (all ages and abilities) complete with those cute little bicycle traffic lights and here we are, a few later asking ourselves...Whare are all the bicycles? By the way the public got behind this idea at the proposal stage this place should look like Amsterdam now hoverer I'm still seeing 200 cars for every bicycle.

 

[Stout]

I wonder how many perfectly functional PCs are going to end up being dumped because they're "not ready" for Windows 11? Will this be counted in Microsoft's environmental footprint? To be fair the whole technology industry is as bad.

I just did this a few months ago. Not due to not giving a rip about Windows 11, the machines were running on Windows 7 just fine, but because they were slow. New Lenovos with 8th generation chips were on sale so off to the recycling depot with the old ones, which were 10+ year old all-in-ones and hello new everything. That's on me, I probably could have squeezed even more years out of them but they're with God now.

I have smart thermostats. I didn't buy them they came with the place and after spending an hour researching how to use them I came to the conclusion I really didn't care. I just use them like manual thermostats and if they cease to function then I'll just replace them with manual ones.

I've been seeing these smart lightbulbs in Home Depot and rather than buying one and having to keep my phone on me at all times I'll just stay with my tried and true, Clapper.

Oh Christ, now I have clap on, clap off running through my head.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

I would not have put it in those terms. Our civilisation absolutely depends on carbon intensive capitalistic industry to function. Not only is there little incentive for that to change, because, well, capitalism, but the possibility of change is limited due to society's dependence on those industries for energy, food, transport and infrastructure.

Yes, society is slowly developing less carbon intensive ways to provide these services. It's slow, but this is what will save the world, if anything will.

 

[arthwollipot]

OK. Look. I have little interest in going over the same posts again and again, while we argue about whether you said what you said, or not.
How about this? From your later clarifications, it would seem that this is what you actually are trying to say:
One person acting alone to select choices that are more sustainable and better for the environment will not have a big effect. That will only happen if enough people make those choices. The only way to get from not enough people to enough people is if individuals start to make those changes themselves. The cumulative effect will be to effect useful, measurable changes on a global scale.
How does that sound? Can we agree on this?

No, we can't, because you're still ignoring humans' dependence on industry. Without decarbonising industry, gains will be in no way fast or consistent enough to ultimately save the world. What it will do is slow down disaster, perhaps for long enough to give society time to solve the bigger problems.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's some information arthwollipot may find interesting:

Indeed I do, and 45% is a bigger proportion than I have seen estimated previously (estimates vary according to the source). But even 45% is still not enough.

 

[novaphile]

Scientists want to write policy though. See here. It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.



No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk. I want to see what walking the talk would look like and climate scientests have nothing to lose here. I've seen it said (paraphrased) When climate scientists start living like there's a climate conference, then maybe we'll start listening to them.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.



Yes, this is what I've been saying all along and it's a direct result of, to put it charitably clumsy climate activism. Locally, we spent millions of dollars closing streets and making elevated, protected bike lanes (all ages and abilities) complete with those cute little bicycle traffic lights and here we are, a few later asking ourselves...Whare are all the bicycles? By the way the public got behind this idea at the proposal stage this place should look like Amsterdam now hoverer I'm still seeing 200 cars for every bicycle.

You will probably see more if you ride yourself.

Car drivers frequently say that they can't see/didn't see the cyclist.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Scientists want to write policy though. See here.

Some scientists. And who can blame them? But they can want all they like, they won't get it.

An IPCC spokesperson said: “It is important to note that the IPCC assessments are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.”

It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.

That could be interesting - but outside their field of expertise so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk.

Democracy, the worst form of government - apart from all the rest.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.

I don't care what Michael Mann's carbon footprint is. I do care about motivating the population as a whole into reducing our carbon footprint. At least he has managed to achieve some small progress there.

Climate scientist Michael Mann wins defamation case against conservative writers

After a day of deliberations, the jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through some of their statements. The compensatory damages were just $1 for each writer. But the punitive damages were larger. The jury ordered Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages; it ordered Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages.

"I don't think there's been anything like it. There's never been a case like this," says Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, a climate accountability nonprofit. "No one has ever taken the climate deniers to court like this."

Davies says while this ruling may not impact anonymous attackers online, the liability verdict and the dollar figure of this judgment may deter more public figures from attacks on climate scientists. "It may keep them in check"

 

[The Atheist]

Nothing to see here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68228943

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Indeed I do, and 45% is a bigger proportion than I have seen estimated previously (estimates vary according to the source). But even 45% is still not enough.

Wrong stat. This the one you want:-

While large oil companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, we consumers are complicit. We demand the products and energy made from the fossil fuels they provide. One scientist found that 90 percent of fossil fuel companies’ emissions are a result of the products made from fossil fuels.

Think about it. Why are our highways clogged with vehicles? People aren't just driving from A to B for kicks. They are traveling to and from work, or transporting goods. And what do they do at work? Make products, or buy and sell them, or service the facilities that do it. If we weren't making and consuming all those products, none of that activity would be necessary.

During Covid lockdowns people worked from home or just did nothing. The result was empty roads and skies, and a dramatic drop in energy consumption. Yet strangely nobody starved. We still got what we needed to live on with a minimum of essential workers. This proves that we could do it if we set our minds to it. Unfortunately the virus wasn't fatal enough...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nothing to see here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68228943

Exactly. This is nothing new - these fires have always occurred.

These fires are not unusual. In the past 10 years, British Columbia has, on average, seen five or six that continue to burn during the cold months, experts say.

But in January, the province saw an unprecedented peak of 106 active zombie fires

Only 20 times more fires than usual!

Canada is too cold anyway. A few fires will help warm the place up a bit. And CO₂, did you know it makes plants grow? With all these wildfires burning trees, we need more growth!

 

[arthwollipot]

Think about it. Why are our highways clogged with vehicles? People aren't just driving from A to B for kicks. They are traveling to and from work, or transporting goods. And what do they do at work? Make products, or buy and sell them, or service the facilities that do it. If we weren't making and consuming all those products, none of that activity would be necessary.

Plastics, mostly. And do you think that our civilisation can end its absolute dependence on plastics any time soon? Let alone soon enough to halt and reverse warming? Do you think that individuals, working independently of each other, can do that?

Oh ****, I've just turned this into yet another individualism vs. collectivism debate.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, we can't, because you're still ignoring humans' dependence on industry. Without decarbonising industry, gains will be in no way fast or consistent enough to ultimately save the world. What it will do is slow down disaster, perhaps for long enough to give society time to solve the bigger problems.

Well, that's a shame. I thought maybe we could come to some sort of amicable agreement. However, as you wish...
Firstly, then, you are ignoring my point that industry is not some separate entity in itself: it is made of people. It involves stakeholders. It is subject to government regulations. It is subject to market forces. Each one of these influences is composed of groups of people. Each group is composed of individuals. If those individuals exert enough pressure, from consumers to shareholders to company directors to governments, then industry will change.
I am also a little puzzled by your flip-flopping on whether or not industry is changing. You doubted it: I posted links showing this was happening, and you later acknowledged it yourself. Now you appear to be going back to saying it isn't changing. Do you mean 'not changing at all', or 'not changing enough', or what? I am genuinely confused.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Plastics, mostly. And do you think that our civilisation can end its absolute dependence on plastics any time soon? Let alone soon enough to halt and reverse warming? Do you think that individuals, working independently of each other, can do that?

Oh ****, I've just turned this into yet another individualism vs. collectivism debate.

No-one has said that individuals alone can effect change. You really need to be clearer on this, because it looks like your position changes from hour to hour.
Now, about plastics:
77 countries have banned plastic bags.
https://www.statista.com/chart/14120/the-countries-banning-plastic-bags/
The EU has banned the top 10 most common types of single-use plastic items.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...an-kicks-europes-plastic-purge-into-high-gear
More initiatives from around the world to reduce the use of plastic:
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/plastic-waste-government-initiatives/

Then, of course, we have the choice as consumers to stop buying single-use plastic goods, to reuse or recycle the plastic we need, to pressure our respective governments to do more, to join environmental groups....
Plenty to be hopeful about. If you want to be hopeful. Plenty we can do as individuals, too.

 

[The Atheist]

And CO₂, did you know it makes plants grow?

The really funny part about CO2 is that it makes people dumber.

https://airqualitynews.com/health/co2-affects-human-health-at-lower-levels-than-previously-thought/

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No-one has said that individuals alone can effect change. You really need to be clearer on this, because it looks like your position changes from hour to hour.
Now, about plastics:
77 countries have banned plastic bags.
https://www.statista.com/chart/14120/the-countries-banning-plastic-bags/
The EU has banned the top 10 most common types of single-use plastic items.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...an-kicks-europes-plastic-purge-into-high-gear
More initiatives from around the world to reduce the use of plastic:
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/plastic-waste-government-initiatives/

Then, of course, we have the choice as consumers to stop buying single-use plastic goods, to reuse or recycle the plastic we need, to pressure our respective governments to do more, to join environmental groups....
Plenty to be hopeful about. If you want to be hopeful. Plenty we can do as individuals, too.

I think all types of bag, plastic, hemp, whatever, at the point of sale in all shops should be banned, or at least very expensive. Consider it a basic educational programme for adults to plan what they need to do the task they have set out to do.

 

[Stout]

You will probably see more if you ride yourself.

Car drivers frequently say that they can't see/didn't see the cyclist.

Former hardcore cycle commuter here. I'm actively looking for them.