climate change

[Intoscience]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The poor have almost no choice about their emissions, it's only the rich that can afford to choose from the alternatives available

This is the crux of the issue, and what many people like Konstantin kisin are trying to point out.

Pointing a finger and demanding action where there is no resource to do so is a bullying tactic.  

This is a global issue all should be involved. Fixing the main issue should be a collaboration from the ground floor up. Each nation's individual status, contribution, hurdles, issues, considerations, focussed on and addressed accordingly. 

Sometimes a helping hand can go along way. 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So what do you think net zero mean's?

 

Reducing carbon emissions to a balanced level, where the emission of greenhouse gases matches the removal of such from the global atmosphere. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

This is the crux of the issue, and what many people like Konstantin kisin are trying to point out.

Pointing a finger and demanding action where there is no resource to do so is a bullying tactic.  

And this is another distraction technique, much like "net zero" which as far as I can tell, it means a way that the corporation's can carry on, in largely the same direction and sell it to the customer's as a solution in itself; and we're back to my coach anolog, hoping it runs out of fuel before we get to the cliff.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

scare mongering the entire world with the notion you must get to net zero or we are all doomed seems a tad unfair towards the lower carbon producing nations

It's not scare mongering if it's true, and yes. Nature is quite often unfair. That doesn't negate the need for change or immediate action like 20 years ago. 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

the impact of doing so between nations is significantly different. therefore to make headway towards net zero, focus should be on the highest contributors.

Nobody disagrees that the impact is not homogenous, but you're presenting a false dichotomy. Everyone must do their part.

It's as if we've been dumping poison into our drinking water for decades. We're trying to stop that because the water is making us die, yet you're here arguing that smaller dumpers should be allowed to keep poisoning the water source / the well and only the biggest poison dumpers must stop. Nope... EVERYONE must stop. End program.

As unfortunate as it is, both fairness and equity are secondary to the core and urgent need here. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

That's not true, the expectation is that all companies, corporations and people are to individually reduce their carbon emissions to net zero. Nations with fewer people, companies, corporations resources have the same individual duty as nations with more. Yet the collaborative impact per nation differs between each nation based on their annual output towards the total global emissions.  If the people, each individually or by collaboration, in a country that produces 5% of the total global emissions reduces their contribution by 100% then that's 5% less towards the total. Compared to a country that contributes 25%,  they would only need to reduce their emissions by 20% to achieve a similar overall impact.       

Which is it? Are they being asked to get to net zero, or are they being asked to each achieve the same reduction? If it’s the latter, could you please provide a link (for a change) to the documentation of this?

If it’s the former, then a country that emits 1 million tons of CO2 doesn’t have to do as much as a country that emits 1 billion tons. 

You can’t freely swap raw numbers and percentages in the conversation 

[iNow]

55 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Pointing a finger and demanding action where there is no resource to do so is a bullying tactic.  

It's more than pointing fingers, and it's not bullying when funding is allocated to help. 

56 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Sometimes a helping hand can go along way. 

Exactly, yet it has felt a bit like you disagree given your tone and words. 

[MigL]

Not that I doubt your numbers, CharonY, as you always post accurate and valid data, but you do have to examine the cross-section of the population that was surveyed, the questions asked, and the time frame considered.
And I'm not arguing the fact that climate change doesn't disproportionately affect poor farmers who grow their own food on small parcels of land, or fishermen who catch their daily meals; while the poor who live by the seashore out of survival necessity are greatly affected by climate change, those of us who live in condos by the beach in vacation houses are 'insulated' from most of the effects of climate change.

Here is the gist of my argument ...

If YOU are a sub-Saharan father of two children who haven't eaten in two days, and you are given the choice of a 40% CO² emission reduction or two bowls of rice for your children, YOU will pick the bowls of rice in a heartbeat.

All the numbers you posted don't make this fact any less credible.
Or as Dimreepr likes to say, you can't eat CO² emission reductions.
 

Edited March 24, 2023 by MigL

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

He may have a personal agenda, I don't care much for that.

Nor do I .

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But many of the points he raises are true, MigL pointed this out, #1. extreme left wing activists #2. are covering the ears, saying yeah yeah blah blah blah... whatever. Then #3 suggesting we get rid of cars, stop eating meat, scrap technology... the irony being that #4 the vast majority of these people continue to live #5 high energy using, technological, comfortable life styles, with  mobile phones and #6 gas guzzling vehicles, #7 plane rides, fast food and #8 luxury a plenty, everything they need or desire at their feet. While other poverty stricken nations are full of people struggling to find food, shelter, fresh water, medicine... #9 But are now being shouted at to reduce their carbon footprint or we are all doomed. 

I could challenge each of the numbered statements for veracity.

This one, however,

Quote

While other poverty stricken nations are full of people struggling to find food, shelter, fresh water, medicine

is accurate, so far as it goes. Hence my skepticism as to the assertion that those struggling people are given a choice between short and long term survival. And, of course, my next question would be: Is it really the "extreme left wing activists" who control the circumstances in which those people struggle, or is it other, more power entities which could, were it in their own interests, effect an improvement in those people's lives and at the same time, the planet's?

Edited March 24, 2023 by Peterkin

[MigL]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

is really the it the"extreme left wing activists" who control the circumstances in which those people struggle, or other, more power entities which could, were it in their own interests, effect an improvement in those people's lives?

Who mentioned 'extreme left wing activists' ?

And that question would be a whole 'nother thread ...

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

If YOU are a sub-Saharan father of two children who haven't eaten in two days, and you are given the choice of a 40% CO² emission reduction or two bowls of rice for your children, YOU will pick the bowls of rice in a heartbeat.

Of course. Hard to disagree. Fundamentally, though... the choice needs to happen at a MUCH larger scale... the government, corporations, etc... Individual choices can help, but are in the end TINY drops in a VERY large bucket. 

Programs and policies must attempt to protect as many people as possible, especially those already struggling, but the fact that we will struggle a bit to achieve these ends or that the struggle won't be fairly distributed is NOT a reason to avoid pushing very hard to achieve this very important goal. 

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But many of the points he raises are true, MigL pointed this out, extreme left wing activists are covering the ears, saying yeah yeah blah blah blah... whatever.

 

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Who mentioned 'extreme left wing activists' ?

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

If YOU are a sub-Saharan father of two children who haven't eaten in two days, and you are given the choice of a 40% CO² emission reduction or two bowls of rice for your children, YOU will pick the bowls of rice in a heartbeat.

I addressed that above, policy is about a larger scale. Using this type of argument we wouldn't have any laws, regulations or society, as feeding your belly would always take precedence. 

That being said, Sub-Saharan folks are not idiots. If they notice their wells drying up, they do wonder what is happening. Also, it is not that all folks there are constantly on the brink of starvation, either. The polls do show that over half of the folks in the region see climate changes as a substantial threat, indicating that quite a few folks there see a link between climate change and challenges to their lives. You seem to think that folks somehow stop thinking when hungry, but quite a few likely will think why their harvests are failing, why areas are flooding and so on. Now, information flow are a bit more limited there, but many African government are acutely aware of the issues (again, policy).

In other words, contrary to your claims it is not that the folks are unaware or uncaring about climate change. And I do not think your example is particular helpful to understand attitudes. It is not about asking a drowning person whether they want to prioritize climate actions over getting fished out of the water. It is about talking to folks about their risk that their area might get under water and how to prevent that.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Pointing a finger and demanding action where there is no resource to do so is a bullying tactic.  

This is a global issue all should be involved. Fixing the main issue should be a collaboration from the ground floor up. Each nation's individual status, contribution, hurdles, issues, considerations, focussed on and addressed accordingly. 

Quote

In addition and my whole point was that a blanket policy rolled out to the entire globe of net zero is not going to be achievable by many nations. A small change for a high emitting nation is going to be more beneficial than a big change from a lower emitting nation. So if you are correct and the lower emitting nations are not as wealthy in general as the higher ones then the impact to try and get to net zero is going to be greater on the less wealthy for less benefit. 

 

Yes exactly, that is what the various UN reports are calling for in their call for net zero. High-income nations should provide more assistance in reaching climate goals and also to to change the system in high-income, high emission. A Canadian person able to cut their average consumption in half would have the impact of ten Gambians cutting their emission to zero. The net zero focusses specifically on high emitters, and also puts the onus on them to transfer green energy to those who cannot afford it. You know, in global collaborative fashion to counter a global threat.

Instead, there is a lot of niggling and downplaying local risks, so that we can pawn of much of the issues to the next generations. 

[TheVat]

We always get reminders that the cutting edge technology that wealthy countries use to produce food, shelter, energy, transit, etc. is seen by the developing world as a model they want to follow.  (e.g. when China started building up their industrial base, they went hogwild on coal burning, just as earlier the UK, US, did) So, whatever we do, that has a ripple effect through many other nations as they seek our material comfort and standard of living.

The ethos of capitalism (or lack of one) is a central problem.  When you ask capitalism, what's more important, shareholder profits or a healthy and sustainable human lifestyle for everyone? you know the answer you will get.  So we need to stop asking capitalism for its wisdom on these matters, and focus on humane systems of government that will promote that latter choice. 

 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

We always get reminders that the cutting edge technology that wealthy countries use to produce food, shelter, energy, transit, etc. is seen by the developing world as a model they want to follow.  (e.g. when China started building up their industrial base, they went hogwild on coal burning, just as earlier the UK, US, did) So, whatever we do, that has a ripple effect through many other nations as they seek our material comfort and standard of living.

The ethos of capitalism (or lack of one) is a central problem.  When you ask capitalism, what's more important, shareholder profits or a healthy and sustainable human lifestyle for everyone? you know the answer you will get.  So we need to stop asking capitalism for its wisdom on these matters, and focus on humane systems of government that will promote that latter choice. 

 

And it should be added that all these talks an urgency are not useless- they do influence policy. Despite China's continued heavy reliance on coal, they were at least motivated to also heavily invest in green energy (around 25% of their energy, I believe), India is at 40% Sweden at 60% while USA and Canada are somewhere between 12-18%, I believe.

An issue is that transitioning can be costly and painful and folks want to avoid these costs, as you mentioned. The problem only is that it is only externalizing the costs, as droughts, floods, heat-associated health care costs, biodiversity issues, food safety issues, etc. are also costly and someone is going to have should them. The strength of capitalism is the short feedback loops that keep the economy going. The weakness is the in-built shortsightedness due to these feedback loops.

[Peterkin]

Top 10 Countries in Which to Live (World Happiness Report 2022):

• Finland — 7.821.
• Denmark — 7.636.
• Iceland — 7.557.
• Switzerland — 7.512.
• Netherlands — 7.415.
• Luxembourg — 7.404.
• Sweden — 7.384.
• Norway — 7.365.

  Top 10 Greenest Countries in the World (2022 EPI):

• Denmark — 77.9
• United Kingdom — 77.7
• Finland — 76.5
• Malta — 75.2
• Sweden — 72.7
• Luxembourg — 72.3
• Slovenia — 67.3
• Austria — 66.5
• Switzerland — 65.9
• Iceland — 62.8

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Personal Income Tax Rates - Trading Economics 2021:

1. Ivory Coast - 60%
2. Finland - 56.95%
3. Japan - 55.97%
4. Denmark - 55.90%
5. Austria - 55.00%
6. Sweden - 52.90%
7. Aruba - 52.00%
8. Belgium - 50.00% (tie)
9. Israel - 50.00% (tie)
10. Slovenia - 50.00% (tie)

Seems like the Scandanavians are doing something right.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Peterkin

[MigL]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

In other words, contrary to your claims it is not that the folks are unaware or uncaring about climate change.

But that isn't what I said.
I specifically said that the poor have more pressing, immediate priorities than climate change.

And, If I'm wrong, I'm not the only one

"Therefore, other problems and, specifically, lowered economic development are greater threats to humanity than global warming."

From     Is climate change the number one threat to humanity? - Goklany - 2012 - WIREs Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

"This opinion piece argues that even if the ‘full incremental costs’ of abatement in developing countries would be covered by industrialized countries, the former's development prospects could be hampered by climate change mitigation due to the following reasons ... Third, higher energy prices could have negative effects on poverty and inequality."

From     How climate change mitigation could harm development in poor countries - Jakob - 2014 - WIREs Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

"Individuals who feel insecure about their economic future are significantly more likely to reject the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, climate change denial and uncertainty are more common in more rural and less prosperous regions and in countries more economically dependent on fossil fuels."

From    Socioeconomic Roots of Climate Change Denial and Uncertainty among the European Population | European Sociological Review | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

[Peterkin]

Yes, it is a feedback loop: economic development  causes climate change; economic development is rated as higher priority than extinction due to climate change; therefore economic development takes precedence over climate change mitigation, resulting in more and faster climate change.

Yes, we are doomed.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

But that isn't what I said.
I specifically said that the poor have more pressing, immediate priorities than climate change.

Regarding your first citation, Goklany is an engineer and has been an advisor under the Trump administration and is known to misrepresent climate research and is known to work with think tanks known to promote climate change denial. The paper is also an opinion paper and does not discuss actual attitudes among the population.

The second paper basically argues that higher income countries should shoulder more of the burden and allow low-income countries establish a better standard, something that is in discussion and there is little disagreement that limiting climate change has to be equitable. Especially as the high-income countries already reaped the benefits.

Third paper discusses the divergence of opinion within countries.  But as I noted even among low-income countries the majority of the population considers the climate change a threat. How much depends obviously on immediate impact and other concerns. I.e. folks on islands with risk of flooding see it as a critical essential threat, whereas folks in Poland have some of the lowest concerns (despite higher overall standard of living). In other words, data suggests that almost everywhere climate change is considered to be a significant concern.

The fact that you can find folks who disagree does not change that.

 

[npts2020]

IMO the biggest problem in dealing with most global problems, especially climate change, is idolization of greed on a planet with 8,000,000,000+ (and growing) humans on it. No matter how much one has, individuals are expected to want more and more and more. This would be all well and good if there were unlimited resources but there seems to not be enough for all the world's citizens to live the lifestyle of an even relatively poor person in most "first world" countries, one of the reasons we are constantly at war (not just with the military) over resources. What happens when you double the numbers of humans in the next century, as some projections predict? Are we somehow going to magically have even more resources at that time? What is the lifestyle eight billion of us can reasonably expect to live if resources are distributed more evenly?

[TheVat]

Aaaand we brush a leg against that forum third rail of population control....

Yes, plus one, what was sustainable for a population of one billion is quite different with eight or more.   Especially when Consumerism becomes the dominant ethos.  I think this might be one reason certain famous capitalists whose names I won't mention (one sounds like a perfume) keep flogging their Mars colonization hobbyhorse, as if this might distract us with the possibility of moving significant fractions of population to other planets.  Ha.

 

[MigL]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

The fact that you can find folks who disagree does not change that.

And the fact that you can find people who agree with you does not change the fact that poor people  are not only disproportionately affected by climate change, but also bu efforts to mitigate climate change.

I have never said climate change is not real and efforts to combat it shouldn't have started years ago; I am making an observation as to who will suffer most due to these efforts.
And maybe other efforts should be in place to help these people which we are throwing 'under the bus' in order to save our beachfront vacation homes.

A John Cuthber pointed out yesterday, Canada took in over 1 Million immigrants last year.
What are the US and other developed countries doing for poor, displaced ( due to war, drought, lack of fishing resources ... ) peoples ?

[npts2020]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

A John Cuthber pointed out yesterday, Canada took in over 1 Million immigrants last year.
What are the US and other developed countries doing for poor, displaced ( due to war, drought, lack of fishing resources ... ) peoples ?

Well, in the US, we are trying to make it impossible for anyone to come here...

[TheVat]

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Seems like the Scandanavians are doing something right.

That happiness top ten seems to correlate with long cold winters.  Could be that everyone who doesn't have a fairly upbeat outlook, or is prone to depression, moves away.  We might be seeing a self-selection effect.  😉

 

[geordief]

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

That happiness top ten seems to correlate with long cold winters.  Could be that everyone who doesn't have a fairly upbeat outlook, or is prone to depression, moves away.  We might be seeing a self-selection effect.  😉

 

In the North of Norway   a young couple (us) was sitting in a restaurant  where the ship had docked  having bought a meal at the counter.

They were approached by one of a group of Sami (Laplanders) with an offer to  buy them another meal if this time they ordered 2 beers at the same time.

Rules is rules and that was the only way for them to buy another drink.

 

Norwegian beer was  really nice and also very expensive in a bid to discourage over consumption,a real problem in the dark "days" of winter.

Wages in the North were also higher to get people to work there 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

What happens when you double the numbers of humans in the next century, as some projections predict?

While halving the area fit for human habitation.

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

What is the lifestyle eight billion of us can reasonably expect to live if resources are distributed more evenly?

For one thing students in Tallahassee and Islamabad would be allowed to know that they have genitals, and might get access to textbooks and birth control.

Might be worth a try, taking all the money and power away from those 82 people, several of whom are insane and/or evil.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

IMO the biggest problem in dealing with most global problems, especially climate change, is idolization of greed on a planet

I agree wholeheartedly that deadly sins numbers 2 (greed) and gluttony (6) are between them the biggest obstacle to be overcome.  +1

As regards the second part of you statement I think the size of the world population makes little if any difference to this stark fact.

Have you come across the doctrines of Schumaker  (Small is Beautiful) and Allaby  (Limits to Growth)  ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful

http://www.herinst.org/envcontext/limits/writings/ecologist.html

 

They are very attractive to well balanced, well motivated human beings.

The only real drawbacks to these doctrines is that thay have no answer to threats from  so called 'Military-Industrial' societies.

Edited March 25, 2023 by studiot