Is global warming the most urgent environmental crisis ?

[Itoero]

I don't know if this is an environmental crisis. But the loss of vegetation/trees causes soil erosion which can  cause Desertification.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_desertification

Edited February 16, 2019 by Itoero

[iNow]

Ocean acidification has a “base of the food chain” element to it that makes me less than comfortable. 

[naitche]

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Ocean acidification has a “base of the food chain” element to it that makes me less than comfortable. 

Yeah. I still can't understand why there is little to no pressure for Govt. to process and utilise sewerage, and maybe algae resulting from poor water quality.

With world wide fertiliser shortages that are essential for farming and often land reclamation thats an area where govts. could 'take actions beyond the scope or abilities of individuals.'

I think there are ways to encourage people to do more and remind communities  of their more personal abilities to respond to the problems they see while helping to shift attitudes and  awareness.  With out imposing costs on those least able to bear them.

An idea I recently heard of is creating 'Forrests of the dead' where I believe people can bury or scatter ashes on barren land and plant a tree with a plaque that will be tended until established. That idea could reduce costs of burial while creating public spaces, reclaiming lands at little cost. 

We don't promote the good ideas to offset climate change as much as we promote the urgency and cost. Its too complex a problem to expect simple solutions that can account for and address local conditions. Being willing to pay for action by others demands they prioritise and isolate problems that are not isolated, and by prioritising those we sacrifice environment.

I'm pretty sure that encouraging individuals to take  responsibility where they can, and to examine their own choices, making change where its within their abilities, is the only way climate action can be effective or 'real'.

Anyone heard of the man who has developed a way to remove plastics from the oceans cheaply and effectively?  Just a rumour to me but sounds promising.

Edited February 17, 2019 by naitche

[iNow]

1 hour ago, naitche said:

...process and utilise sewerage, and maybe algae resulting from poor water quality.

 With world wide fertiliser shortages ...

While sewage and fertilizer runoff need to be managed, those are not even remotely close in scale or impact, and they also pale in comparison to the acidification of our oceans due to uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

1 hour ago, naitche said:

I'm pretty sure that encouraging individuals to take  responsibility where they can, and to examine their own choices, making change where its within their abilities, is the only way climate action can be effective or 'real'.

I disagree. This problem is too big for minor actions from tiny handfuls or conscientious people to matter. 

Sure, you using fewer squares of toilet paper each time you poop and ceasing use of plastic straws is nice, but you’re basically putting bandaids on compound fractures and ruptured organs. 

We instead need system-wide / planet-wide legislation to convert our sources of power, its distribution, and the way it gets used. We also need to invest heavily in carbon capture, green infrastructure, and agriculture to account for coming droughts, floods, and ferocious storms. We need to be moving people away from coastlines, reinventing air travel, and ending use of coal, petroleum, and more. 

We need to shift the entire paradigm, not just tweak the margins. Nothing less will rise to the actual challenge before us. 

Edited February 17, 2019 by iNow

[naitche]

 

On 2/17/2019 at 1:09 PM, iNow said:

While sewage and fertilizer runoff need to be managed, those are not even remotely close in scale or impact, and they also pale in comparison to the acidification of our oceans due to uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Appreciate the link, thank you. 

I'd been lead to believe the carbon uptake in oceans was increased by the action of  nutrients released into them.

Quote

I disagree. This problem is too big for minor actions from tiny handfuls or conscientious people to matter. 

Sure, you using fewer squares of toilet paper each time you poop and ceasing use of plastic straws is nice, but you’re basically putting bandaids on compound fractures and ruptured organs. 

We instead need system-wide / planet-wide legislation to convert our sources of power, its distribution, and the way it gets used. We also need to invest heavily in carbon capture, green infrastructure, and agriculture to account for coming droughts, floods, and ferocious storms. We need to be moving people away from coastlines, reinventing air travel, and ending use of coal, petroleum, and more. 

We need to shift the entire paradigm, not just tweak the margins. Nothing less will rise to the actual challenge before us. 

I agree with  that. The last sentence most.

I just  think the pardadigm shift has to be whole community inclusive one, so its not just tiny handfuls of conscientious people ceasing use of plastic straws. 

Otherwise it looks too much to me like tweaking the margins, and that within  a very narrow perspective of what I will call the political class. Who are mostly not seen to bear any of that cost personally. 

 If humanity is going to change its direction, it has to recognise a new one and the value of changing it,  before corporate interests and individuals are  held accountable.

It is a huge problem and so complex. Focusing on the negatives only, or costs, is not good marketing. There has to be demonstrated benefits to change. People  recognising their own abilities  to  experience them . We need to find ways to give the new direction more value. Ways to demonstrate it.  A  paradigm shift that includes economies.

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by naitche

[Ken Fabian]

On 2/17/2019 at 12:10 PM, naitche said:

I'm pretty sure that encouraging individuals to take  responsibility where they can, and to examine their own choices, making change where its within their abilities, is the only way climate action can be effective or 'real'.

I disagree. Responsibility and accountability, especially on the really big things, where there are big vested interests, only really get dealt with through legal precedent and regulation - making it a personal choice whether to act responsibly never really works. Especially when a lot of people with power and influence really, truly don't want to be held responsible on this; we may all be shareholders in this mess but we are not, individually, the majority shareholders. A lot of the big decisions that need to be made are institutional ones, not individual ones, and our institutions of government, law, engineering and commerce have heavy investments in doing things the way we have been, without counting the externalised costs of fossil fuels, which turn out to be very large; the lengths they have been going to to avoid being held responsibility should not be underestimated. Nor the effectiveness of the techniques available to well resourced opponents of climate responsibility to influence the thinking of the Right People as well as Enough People, to sway voting options as well as voting choices. It is a toolkit that includes Lobbying, Strategic Donating, Tactical Lawfare, Post-Politics Payoffs, Advertising, PR and Tankthink.

Also I think a lot of people are too engaged in living their lives within the opportunities, obligations and constraints of their individual circumstances to be able to push past what their preferred news and current affairs programs might tell them about these issues. It isn't only scientists and elected or appointed officials that have an obligation to act responsibly - news editors and journalists have repeatedly shown themselves to be active participants in those efforts to influence public opinion on climate change - which ought not be a surprise when their biggest commercial customers tend to be strongly opposed to climate responsibility adding any burden of costs on their activities. Doing the Advertising and PR and Paid-for Opinion on the issue is a big commercial opportunity for media companies. ( A "campaign" by a leading Australian newspaper is currently active, slandering the Bureau of Meteorology over how they process temperature records, despite unprocessed data shows the warming trend as clearly as the processed. Plus other persistent misinformation continues to be prominent - all more shrilly than previous campaigns; exposure to extremes of drought, heat, fire and flood are exacerbating the growing trend towards community acceptance of it's reality - and to a more limited extent, it's urgency - their influence and persuasion is losing effectiveness).

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[iNow]

Perhaps we say it another way: Everyone needs to act responsibly and in ways helping us address the challenge, but only making changes around individual choices in resource consumption isn’t even close to enough to turn the tide.

Edited February 18, 2019 by iNow

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Perhaps we say it another way: Everyone needs to act responsibly and in ways helping us address the challenge, but only making changes around individual choices in resource consumption isn’t even close to enough to turn the tide.

We can't run before we can walk; collectively.

Edited February 18, 2019 by StringJunky

[iNow]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

We can't run before we can walk; collectively.

Maybe you can elaborate?

The order in which we run or walk is irrelevant if fundamental changes are made centrally by a few benevolent technocrats. 

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe you can elaborate?

The order in which we run or walk is irrelevant if fundamental changes are made centrally by a few benevolent technocrats. 

I meant the parts that Joe Public can change can only come gradually with education.

[Ken Fabian]

I think those in positions of trust, responsibility, power and influence throwing this issue back onto the public is responsibility avoidance written large. Making it a matter of individual lifestyle and purchasing choices or a matter of popular public opinion and voter choice to address (or not) collectively through our society's institutions - whilst being active participants in misinformation to influence that opinion and choice is doubly problematic; rejecting the mainstream advice may be an individual's "free" choice but it is textbook negligence for those with broader fiduciary duties of care. But to actively misinform ("educate") the community or use their reach and influence to endorse and give respectability to campaigns of disinformation is a much more serious kind of negligence. And we are going to continue to struggle to get Joe Public well informed enough to make rational and ethical choices.

And still the widespread ability to know better but do things that are not in our longer term best interests anyway (personal experience here) makes personal choices an unreliable means of addressing this, whether by our individual actions or our voting choices. Especially if the voting options themselves are skewed.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[naitche]

I understand your position and would have followed that several years ago.

Also your points made here and else where that  its not a matter of capitalism vs socialism.

But we are the tide.

My own study and observation though all points to the idea that Humanity is a space, whos direction is decided by the messages its operating on. Collectively these seem to be driven by economy and consumerism  that are said to drive economic growth and its connection to global stability. The human space has been 'conditioned' by those. They are  the conditions we've been supporting for Humanities direction.

If we are to support another condition in conflict with that message we do need a paradigm shift that can only alter that direction by supplanting the message we have been conditioned to

Volume counts here. Parts of humanity can't alter direction for all until its gained acceptance. Not without opposition. Its a single space that won't be split without creating opositional force. 

We have just had a coal mining company announce caps on production and diversification into more environmentally friendly technology, driven by share holders.

It still looks to me like its  the volume of acceptance that will drive change upwards, that we get in governance and institutions what  environmental expectation demands. What  reflects the direction we have.

Environment is does not respond. Expecting that Govt. and institutions will drive change is expecting environment to respond to our needs, instead of our own response shaping the environment. Any actions of Govt. and institutions, as parts of our environment, must have the support to be effective.

Govt and institutions can only  limit the direction we take, not change it. They are only  parts of the direction we take collectively,  parts of our environment.

They can accept or reject our responses, not direct the form it will take. 

 

[naitche]

The environment we have, including Govt and institutions are as they are because they've had the support to be.

We get the conditions we best support.

Negativity supports low to zero expectations of response ability, and leaves the environment to  limit the response its getting.

Edited February 23, 2019 by naitche

[studiot]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

If we are to support another condition in conflict with that message we do need a paradigm shift that can only alter that direction by supplanting the message we have been conditioned t

I agree with this, unfortunately those promoting these shifts tend to be less well resourced and less articulate than the establishment.

For example the small book

'Cradle to Cradle' by Braungart and McDonough

Is very well reasearched, and contains some excellent examples of actual (successful) cases.

However it is very hard to read as its style is not coherent or progressive.

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Govt and institutions can only  limit the direction we take, not change it. They are only  parts of the direction we take collectively,  parts of our environment.

They can accept or reject our responses, not direct the form it will take. 

When our back have been to the wall (eg WW II) coherent (joined up)  Government did indeed lead and direct a successful collective response to an emergency.
But real and imminent emergencies do appear to be the only drver for such action.

In the Netherlands (Holland) last year the banned the use of gas in new homes.

The UK government is considering a similar ban.
But another part of the UK government is still offering grant suport and promoting gas boilers.
Worse the UK government has fragmented its policy to provide a relaible and stable electricity alternative.

[naitche]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I agree with this, unfortunately those promoting these shifts tend to be less well resourced and less articulate than the establishment.

For example the small book

'Cradle to Cradle' by Braungart and McDonough

Is very well reasearched, and contains some excellent examples of actual (successful) cases.

However it is very hard to read as its style is not coherent or progressive.

Thanks, I' ll check that out. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

When our back have been to the wall (eg WW II) coherent (joined up)  Government did indeed lead and direct a successful collective response to an emergency.
But real and imminent emergencies do appear to be the only drver for such action.

In the Netherlands (Holland) last year the banned the use of gas in new homes.

The UK government is considering a similar ban.
But another part of the UK government is still offering grant suport and promoting gas boilers.
Worse the UK government has fragmented its policy to provide a relaible and stable electricity alternative.

Yes. I think its possible yet to to speed things up though.

By taking the actions we can as individuals we demonstrate value in taking them, and promote that direction. Play a part in changing whats expected , by what is  seen.

[studiot]

The eco (furniture) factory described in the book is still going strong.

https://grimshaw.global/projects/herman-miller-factory/

[Ken Fabian]

Naitche, the feedback loops amongst and between commerce, governments, media and public mean public opinion remains subject to significant manipulation. I can see, where I am, that public opinion has shifted enough that political rhetoric is changing - but even that change has been much harder and slower in coming than it ought to have been, because people in power turned aside from the mainstream expert advice and sought, persistently, over decades, using unethical but legal means, to take public opinion with them. Apathy, ignorance and anti-environmentalist sentiment were advantageous to those pursuing Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking so as to not to have this burden of responsibility land on them - so I think the expectation was that not enough popular opinion could be mobilised on the issue to change the status quo and this became a tactical reason to throw this back on the public. Doing "the will of the people" has tended to ring hollow on this - and those who made it a justification to oppose strong climate action will be unlikely to change because of "the will of the people" has changed; rather, they can and have turned back against that public opinion, portraying it as an unthinking populist fad. It has been a remarkable effort by people taking the expert advice seriously to swing public opinion to the extent that political parties fear to openly reject the expert advice - but that is a long way short of real commitment to fixing the climate problem.

Popular opinion demanding more action is a positive thing but when the people with power and influence continue to want to avoid climate responsibility it tends to lead to renewed efforts to misinform and confuse the public as well as lip-service appeasements of those community concerns  - like making in principle statements that are not backed by actions or giving support to feel-good projects that aren't expected to lead to substantial change (subsidise some solar power for example, back when it really was low power and very high cost - with it's expected failures becoming the ammunition in turn to oppose more ambitious schemes - no-one expecting solar energy prices could come down so far so fast). In practice, with respect to actions that could be expected to be effective, like carbon pricing or emissions limits, opponents can continue to oppose and obstruct whilst saying how important addressing the problem is - there are too many ways to hide opposition behind rhetorical demands that the policies be better.

Yes, public opinion has shifted and that is both necessary and good, but as long as overt and covert institution opposition continues the actual commitments made will be inadequate, the actual policies will be compromised and delayed action will let a cumulative, irreversible problem of unimaginable scale to continue to get worse.

I think it takes the threat of legal liability to induce institutional change - based on long running legal principles around responsibility and accountability, not even introducing anything climate change specific. Including holding that people holding fiduciary duties of care are negligent by failing to give full consideration to expert advice. If our institutions of law and governments continue to provide loopholes and exceptions - ie they are corrupt - then our chances of fixing this problem in any reasonable time frame are so greatly diminished as to make me concerned that failure must become inevitable.

[naitche]

Sounds like a central  perspective of the same principles at work.

Opposing cultures struggling for ascendance. Like genetic selection- which message holds most value.  And what exactly is the new one? 

Maybe we should be discussing that.

That remains to be demonstrated and the environment can't do that. We demonstrate it to the environment and so form the expectations it holds  

When we get it right,  more of it becomes available for our use. Like when you clean up your backyard. Its  all some ones back yard.

The value demonstrated by that action increases the available space. As the share holders I mentioned did for their environment.

As an identity in its own environment the company expects that will improve its prospects and potential.

As parts of our environment, it has no value of its own..  Any value positive or negative is brought to it by how we  respond to it, what purpose we can find in it.

It  gives me the idea  idea of a multi verse. Every identified subject has an environment,  but  also is an environment for all it contains.  The selection processes decide what it does contain.

 

On 2/24/2019 at 11:25 AM, Ken Fabian said:

Naitche, the feedback loops amongst and between commerce, governments, media and public mean public opinion remains subject to significant manipulation. I can see, where I am, that public opinion has shifted enough that political rhetoric is changing - but even that change has been much harder and slower in coming than it ought to have been, because people in power turned aside from the mainstream expert advice and sought, persistently, over decades, using unethical but legal means, to take public opinion with them. Apathy, ignorance and anti-environmentalist sentiment were advantageous to those pursuing Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking so as to not to have this burden of responsibility land on them - so I think the expectation was that not enough popular opinion could be mobilised on the issue to change the status quo and this became a tactical reason to throw this back on the public. Doing "the will of the people" has tended to ring hollow on this - and those who made it a justification to oppose strong climate action will be unlikely to change because of "the will of the people" has changed; rather, they can and have turned back against that public opinion, portraying it as an unthinking populist fad. It has been a remarkable effort by people taking the expert advice seriously to swing public opinion to the extent that political parties fear to openly reject the expert advice - but that is a long way short of real commitment to fixing the climate problem.

Popular opinion demanding more action is a positive thing but when the people with power and influence continue to want to avoid climate responsibility it tends to lead to renewed efforts to misinform and confuse the public as well as lip-service appeasements of those community concerns  - like making in principle statements that are not backed by actions or giving support to feel-good projects that aren't expected to lead to substantial change (subsidise some solar power for example, back when it really was low power and very high cost - with it's expected failures becoming the ammunition in turn to oppose more ambitious schemes - no-one expecting solar energy prices could come down so far so fast). In practice, with respect to actions that could be expected to be effective, like carbon pricing or emissions limits, opponents can continue to oppose and obstruct whilst saying how important addressing the problem is - there are too many ways to hide opposition behind rhetorical demands that the policies be better.

Yes, public opinion has shifted and that is both necessary and good, but as long as overt and covert institution opposition continues the actual commitments made will be inadequate, the actual policies will be compromised and delayed action will let a cumulative, irreversible problem of unimaginable scale to continue to get worse.

I think it takes the threat of legal liability to induce institutional change - based on long running legal principles around responsibility and accountability, not even introducing anything climate change specific. Including holding that people holding fiduciary duties of care are negligent by failing to give full consideration to expert advice. If our institutions of law and governments continue to provide loopholes and exceptions - ie they are corrupt - then our chances of fixing this problem in any reasonable time frame are so greatly diminished as to make me concerned that failure must become inevitable.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by naitche

[naitche]

On 2/24/2019 at 11:25 AM, Ken Fabian said:

 

.

Yes, public opinion has shifted and that is both necessary and good, but as long as overt and covert institution opposition continues the actual commitments made will be inadequate, the actual policies will be compromised and delayed action will let a cumulative, irreversible problem of unimaginable scale to continue to get worse.

 

While those institutions  are  supported to do so through the choices we as individuals  make. 

 

 

Application of negative values can only reduce environment. Not increase it.

Thats an attempt to reduce the environment to an optimal condition.  Like pedigree dogs. Clinging to that  idea  can only continue to reduce .

Its rejection of environment. Not a response to an environments to optimise its conditions. Its an inability to respond.

Environment is what you have. You can work with it or against it. Working against it does not improve its condition. It reduces the conditions you have to work with.  Thats if successful, in opposition.. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by naitche

[naitche]

This works, and can be clearly seen at work when you gain the perspective needed.

Individual response-ability is crucial to the direction taken.

Diversity maximises that ability for the cultural identity through demonstration of value, and where/how it can be found.

Limiting what can be done is not a positive direction and can only limit environment in unforeseen ways.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by naitche

[TheVat]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/93ynm5/scientists-studying-temperature-at-which-humans-spontaneously-die-with-increasing-urgency

 

In the recent heat wave afflicting the Pacific Northwest (US and Canada),  the rise in weather with "wet bulb" conditions has been brought into the media spotlight again.   

 

As I see it,  one of the unfortunate feedback aspects happens when you have people using more fossil fuels to power their AC systems in extreme heat,  which in turns puts more GHGs into the atmosphere.  Longterm,  we should look at not only alternative energy sources but also architecture which allows homes to handle hot weather events better with passive modifications.  There may be, for example, parts of the globe where it will make more sense to have berm houses and other underground living spaces that are naturally cooler,  and not just air condition massively.  

[Ken Fabian]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

As I see it,  one of the unfortunate feedback aspects happens when you have people using more fossil fuels to power their AC systems in extreme heat,  which in turns puts more GHGs into the atmosphere.  Longterm,  we should look at not only alternative energy sources but also architecture which allows homes to handle hot weather events better with passive modifications.  There may be, for example, parts of the globe where it will make more sense to have berm houses and other underground living spaces that are naturally cooler,  and not just air condition massively.  

Energy efficient homes help but I don't have a problem with growing AC use, just with any growth of fossil fuel consumption to run them. And heat pump (including AC) technologies are amongst our most efficient. Building an abundance of clean energy helps whether homes are efficient or not - and that shift to clean energy is already happening, just not quickly enough. Similarly for Electric Vehicles; they are not a solution without a shift to clean energy sources to both build them and run them.

It is not enough that people who care enough to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint at personal cost, we need solutions that will work equally well with people who are extravagantly wasteful and don't care, ie our primary sources of energy all need to be shifted to very low/zero emissions so that everything flowing from that, including manufacturing and running AC and EV's, is very low/zero emissions. There will be real limits on overall economic prosperity but I don't see the shift to zero emissions as a primary limiting factor; on the contrary, failure to adopt clean energy will be a major factor that hurts our continuing prosperity as climate impacts become more pronounced.

[Ken Fabian]

I think using zero emissions energy decouples global warming from population. Not entirely but the biggest part of it.

Population matters but I think global warming is not an unavoidable consequence of high population - and it is unhelpful as well as wrong to presume it. Unhelpful because believing it true means believing there is no solution that doesn't involve significant population reduction and there aren't any nice ways that can happen quickly and even the ways to do it as a global priority by controlling birth rates still risk crossing over into crimes against humanity territory. Unhelpful because it supports the argument that the cure will be - must be - worse than the disease and committing - really committing - to fixing the problem must lead to global tyranny that regulates fertility.

But it is an avoidable consequence of high population and committing - really committing - to fixing the climate problem can accommodate the natural human urge and desire to have children and climate policy can butt out of people's family lives.

There will be issues arising from high populations and continued population growth but they don't have to be climate issues. A high population using clean energy can make less emissions and global warming than a low population using dirty energy and (as others have noted) education, access to medical services and contraceptives have proven effective at reducing birth rates - even within communities with religious prohibitions against them - so economic development that is based around clean energy looks like a win-win.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Ken Fabian