People keep asking, "But what should I do?"
There are innumerable resources with what to do. The first page of a search shows over 100 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tips+environment&atb=v173-1&ia=web.
The sooner everyone starts doing all of them, the sooner we'll reach sustainability. There will be problems along the way. It's also the fastest, most efficient way to motivate governments, corporations, churches, and other institutions to act.
We have to get into our heads and hearts: "Everyone do everything."
I don't understand the mindset of older people who either deny climate change or do nothing about it - do they not care about the world their children are going to live in?
I get that rich people will be shielded from the worst of climate change but at some point don't you get rich enough that other things become more important? Or at that stage does it become all about competing with peers to accumulate power?
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-chil...
Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away,
we have a 100% success rate in solving it. Climate change is no different.
All the right people are working hard at a wide variety of solutions and already know how
to get there, meaning more nuclear power plus CO2 scrubbers, plus lots of green power from solar, wind, and more.
If you are worried about rising sea levels, don’t be. The smartest and richest people in the
world are still buying property on the beach. They don’t see the problem.
And if sea levels do rise, it will happen slowly enough for people to adjust.
And Chinas government does indeed take clime protection serious. They tend to understate their measures because of cultural reason, but their results can stand on itself and they don't really need to hide behind anybody.
Of course they still have a lot of problems due to their developmental level and we should be careful to not let the government use climate change as a justification to suppress the population, who hasn't developed a widespread consciousness for environmental protections, if we can even claim our societies did.
Disallowing China to build coal plants doesn't solve anything.
I was wrong. Fast forward 23 years and nothing has been done, emissions have continued to exponentially increase, every warning has been ignored. It’s now clear that for things to actually turn around the way I thought they would back in 96 would have required massive civil disobedience bordering on revolution, and the aggressive application of military force worldwide to pressure other countries into emissions cuts while pumping huge amounts of resources into supplying the world with carbon free power (at the time, nuclear).
Which is pretty much what has to happen now except the timeline is insanely, unfairly shorter.
How about having the developing countries pay for the damage done to the enviorment and using that money to help developing countries with building cleaner power plants instead?
The amount of defeatism, unfounded scepticism, denial, and just pure and nasty ad hominem attacks is sickening.
The one potentially positive thing to note may be that denial and anger often come before acceptance. Eventually.
I find using emotions instead of facts to sway the political discourse to be problematic.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned or even angry at this. Maybe not good enough reasons to create an account on Twitter and scream into the void, though.
Is being young disqualifying for having strong opinions ?
it's just too toxic and I don't need that in my head.
Group 1: Stock traders - example opinion "Greta is groomed by some sick fuck, no child should act like that".
Group 2: Software developers - mostly never about software; example opinion - a bit like OP.
So the toxicity I'm trying to avoid - anything about US politics, US news, guns, environment(when there's no tech discussed) gender or race.
There are mobs of great people, scientists, activists etc... speaking truth to power about global climate change worldwide and have been doing so for decades.
I'm just not clear about what is remarkable about what she's doing aside from her being a teenager.
As a relevant counter example, Boyan Slat invented a plastic cleanup device at 16 and has made good progress getting it used in practice. [1] That seems like something that is novel and beneficial.
1. Why we talk about climate change being serious threat, yet we are acting as if nothing is going on?
2. What is the point of studying science, if politicians do not listen to science?
That, and her determination to strike (based on the two above points).
You can argue that neither argument is particularly difficult or complicated. They are rather obvious in hindsight. Well, there is a name for things like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus
That's not really what's happening. From day one, in the eighties, the ones who have been vocal about this have been politicians. Al Gore, the IPCC, etc. I mean, most people can't name a single scientist advocating this issue. In France, just like in the US, the number one advocate on this issue is a TV show host. And in fact, the most well-known French scientist (turned politician) who talked about global warming (Claude Allegre) is what people would call a skeptic or denier...
What's happening today is that:
1. in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
2. in developing countries, leaders also choose to ignore it
> in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
According to polls, it is considered to be very important issue, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/15/americans-cl...
There was another poll and in European countries the support is even higher.
Making politicians uncomfortable about their careers. Lots of other people have tried and failed. She's succeeding.
As for France, there is not much more to do; the country's energy mix is largely nuclear + hydro and the industry has long left the country anyway. Macron could try to promote insect burgers, as they are trying in other countries, by in that case he'll get protests even bigger than the yellow vests :)
While this could be true on some deeper level I don't think that this specific event is a good one to base such an assessment on.
Being invited to talk to the UN is a great honor from the political establishment and her speech got interrupted by applause several times. I only watched the speech itself, but I have difficulties to see evidence that people there were uncomfortable.
edit: This appears to be very controversial? Would someone care to elaborate?
Evaluations about his project should be extremely careful, as [currently] there isn't any meaningful way to measure progress.
Both 2019 deployments failed, and interestingly, there is very little analysis of the second, aside the company's own reports.
Obviously she's older/a teenager, but this is still at it's core, an emotional draw. Has she authored papers and done the models? She's a spokeswoman. Even if the intent is different, it's still similar in means and effect to the Nayirah testimony.
But
- Why is caring about climate left-wing?
- It's the same people ignoring the scientists, that write this crap, so no, a scientist speaking doesn't solve anthing. Unfortunately. It wouldn't have come to this then.
I agree an impassioned plea can be just as helpful as an expert opinion. But is she mature enough at that age to understand the consequences of the celebrity status that is being put on her through this?
I saw her speak in a fireside chat and spoke with people who have spent time with her.
She's plenty mature.
Meaning she spoke strongly and powerfully and is difficult to argue against so they attack everything else.
Personally I like different a rhetoric rather than fatalism, but it is undeniable that she is successful and that this is probably going to be a net positive.
Regarding why some people react negatively to her I also understand that.
- The left-wing hates prosperity (and freedom).
- Prosperity comes from coal, oil, and cutting down forests to make cattle ranches. Freedom comes from buying weapons with the profits.
- Climate scientists/advocates say we have to scale back the coal, oil and forest bits, or we're flirting with extinction-level risks.
- Ergo, climate scientists/advocates are left-wing.
It isn't. Why is it percieved as left-wing? Because President Reagan and business lobbyists pushed hard to associate climate science with a "big government, pro-regulation, anti-business" (in other words, "left-wing" according to their propaganda) agenda[0].
Also likely IMO because of associations between environmentalism, feminism and the left-wing hippie movement of the 1960s.
[0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...
That's because the only glimmers of hope we currently have are pure wishful thinking. Pointing toward accelerated technological change is pointing towards the non-existing, and of course that can be hopeful, but it's not guaranteed to change anything. The only real change is not hopeful, because we know it won't happen, but it's what would work: drastic reduction in carbon footprint worldwide through policy.
So we cling on to what might happen, and might work: the magic device, the magic technology, the iPhone of the climate apocalypse, the thing that will solve our issue. We don't need a thing, we need less things, less carbon in the atmosphere and the unavoidable slowdown of the fossil fueled economy it brings with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_climate_strikes
You must be talking about the people not reacting to the science: fear of acting, denial, complacency.
If you ever participated in a town hall meeting you'll see that half of it is very bureaucratic formalities and slow convergence on a very technical level. At least here in Germany.
I don't think that changes a lot "higher up".
But, I've had an interest in geopolitics for about 2 years now. So, I've been reading and watching what's been going on at the UN a bit. Especially this week since it's general assembly week. At the end, this is nothing special.
If you've listened to one "we need to save the planet due to climate" speech, you have heard them all. After listening to about five hours worth of different people, including thunberg, no one really stood out. Yesterday, she was not the only one talking about climate change at the UN. Macron, Merkel, hell even Harrison Ford was there. But he at least hit the problem on the nose, "Sting held a concert here about climate change 30 years ago. And we're still talking about it today." Plus, he needs to number his note cards. He shuffled them and lost his place too many times.
It's not like I'm against making fossil fuels a footnote in history. That'll be a good thing on so many levels. But all these "climate talks" are just talk.
We're all fired up the past few weeks due to the Amazon burning. Which is terrible. But all these talks act like the end game to those fires is to twirl a mustache. It's to clear land so Brazil becomes more of a world player. Which! Mind you! Was a huge part of yesterday's talks. Peru, for example, had some of their indigenous groups in talking about inclusion into the world market.
You have two "positive" ideals that are currently in conflict and no one is figuring out how to rectify that. How do developing countries still compete in the highly competitive world market without using cheaper fossil fuel options? How do they do it if they can't use their sovereign land due to international rhetoric? I'm not saying this as being apologetic for coal or Amazon burning. I'm just saying these "save the trees" talks are a waste of time. Figuring out how to redirect the causes into cleaner alternatives or more environmentally friendly methods is the real goal. Not crying about "my future". Which, to be honest, was the most cringe first world cry fit ever. For someone who got on the UN stage, she should probably take a gander at some UN programs where they try helping children with barely an immediate future before she cries about her distant future. That's why when people say she's "brave"... eh... the UN has a ton of youth programs that introduce teens to the UN functions. Not like she's the only kid giving a talk they've ever dealt with... this week alone.
I'm just sick of the rhetoric and people thinking that the virtue signalling is enough to save the planet. What about all the CO2 generated due to travel and resource use to mobilize all these folks from across the world due to the talks?
Like, here's a quick example, as I have the UN live stream playing. Palm Oil, I think most of you know, is shitty for the environment in different parts of the supply chain. The EU wants to ban palm oil. Knee jerk morally righteous action. Malaysia exports a lot of it. Small to mid size country wanting to be relevant in a world economy. They cut down lots of forests to grow and process palm oil. Well, let's say the same farmers now switch over to a different cash crop. There's no cash crop they can grow to make the same amount of money in the same amount of farm land. Soybeans, for example, requires about 4-5 times more land compared to palm oil to make the same amount of revenue. Thus, more forest cutting for farm land to sustain the people.
Ban palm oil to save the forests... but leads to more forests being cut because smaller countries want to have an export to be apart of the world market. This is why I hate politicians and "talks". I'm worried that some short sighted policy is going to spring up due to this girl. And that short sighted policy is going to make our climate issues worse.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/maga...
This is just based on what you said, and you might clarify afterwards. But I find it weird that palm oil planting was US led. They're only 6th in import: http://www.worldstopexports.com/palm-oil-imports-by-country/
I would imagine china or india being bigger driving forces in clear cutting forests for palm oil planting.
You have to ask how much of this is genuine and on merit, and how much was engineered.
We (the current population and effectively the richest 10%) have to be willing to give up our personal riches and 'freedom' comforts for the sake of others. Others who are now facing the effects of a changing climate and others who will be facing it in the future.
It is best described by this comic [0] tomtoro.com/cartoons/#jp-carousel-135
I don't believe environmentalism and capitalism have to be at odds. I think the "at odds" is artificial, from both sides. As a bit of trivia, when kerosene use to be processed, gasoline was a waste by product. Thus, dumped straight into the water supply. While anything oil is essentially the devil, and not exactly the best example, but is a form iteration. At least it wasn't dumped into the water supply anymore after a profitable use was found. My grand point, take that same economic drive and have that person try doing the same with an environmental twist. Oh, better one. Sorry, I'm thinking on the fly. What if Dick Chaney was a tree hugger? And I'm serious. Think if a guy like him, with his hardcore tenacity, lack of care of others, woke up one day and went "I'm going to save the rainforest because the forests need saving. Fuck people." Because I know the guy would still make money doing it... God have mercy on your soul if you're holding a chainsaw.
I find the problem lies between attitude and... well... competence. Not competence is like a general sense. But how the "world functions". First, it's complicated as hell. It's so interconnected, it's crazy. That seems silly and obvious, but the more you try to understand it, it's a situation where you learn how little you actually know. Like, why does the USA gov not like coffee prices going down? Because Columbian farmers don't make as much from growing coffee. They now have more reason to grow coca. Thus, more cocaine. Higher coffee prices keeps coca productions at a certain level. Still high, but if the production goes higher, supply of cocaine goes up, thus prices go down, and it becomes even more accessibly to the world stage and then even more cocaine users. But then you have people complain about the price of a pound of coffee. I'm okay with spending more on coffee ever since I learned of this. And that's just a super simple example. There are better ones. But I hope that makes the point.
On the other point of attitude. I'm well... allergic to people "spreading awareness". Going back to Ethiopia, why is it that a country tries and does break a world wide daily tree planting record in the name of trying to save the planet, got what? An article or two? A teen cries and says "shame on you", we all lose our minds? Seriously, that's where a lot of the anger comes from. One group of people spreads awareness by trying to make one shred of actual difference to actually help the planet. In a long term manner at that. No one cares. But yesterday there was a slew of "young people out to save the world" at the UN, not just greta. They all just say "Shame on you old people." They have no real plan. No real course of action. They don't even know the history or system that led us to this. But they have plenty of "shame on you".
In truth, they are right. Shame on us. We listen to the talkers, the virtue signalers and the politicians who led us to the hell hole. We ignore those planting trees, picking up garbage and educating developing countries on eco-friendly methods of production.
Greta: "Don't shit where you eat"
Twitter: "Someone should kill this left-wing scum"
The world is looking rather bleak today.
Do you even know who that is?
Until there's UBI and free instant teleportation, people got to get around somehow unless you're hoping people do miracles when protesting?