Aah man, I'm just not interested in dick-measuring games... If you have nothing substantive to say, I'm done with this conversation

https://grist.org/cities/tampa-wanted-renewable-energy-resolution-florida-lawmakers-made-sure-it-couldnt-gas-ban-preemption/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon

Always great to see the Republican Party trying their best to not only destroy the planet, but preventing even minor efforts to save it. That’s commitment— they take death pacts seriously.

https://grist.org/cities/tampa-wanted-renewable-energy-resolution-florida-lawmakers-made-sure-it-couldnt-gas-ban-preemption/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon

Always great to see the Republican Party trying their best to not only destroy the planet, but preventing even minor efforts to save it. That’s commitment— they take death pacts seriously. — Xtrix

Can't have the state restricting free competition for energy now can we? 19 states apparently have passed such legislation... insane.

I do wonder as a non-american, what is their thinking? Is it just only short-sighted protection of their interests, without much consideration for anything else? Do they realize what is at stake, or have they actually managed to convince themselves that the whole climate change thing is a hoax propagated by their political adversaries? I mean, how do you justify something like that to yourself?

Is it just only short-sighted protection of their interests, without much consideration for anything else? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes.

I mean, how do you justify something like that to yourself? — ChatteringMonkey

In many ways. First and foremost: “I’m just following orders.” They’re doing what comes “naturally” within a capitalist system: make profits, raise stock prices, post huge quarterly earnings, repeat. Or you’re out. All else is an externality, including climate change.

“It’s a job for Congress.” That’s another one. Knowing full well Congress is dysfunctional, and that they will lobby against any changes.

The solution is planetary-scale geo-engineering, all other solutions are moot at this point.

I don't think people have understood yet the full implications of golbal warming and the response this will require.

On the other hand at a practical level it seems incredibly easy. Just direct, say, 3 trillion dollars every year toward geo-engineering and research, as well as producing good policy, mass-transit etc.

The solution is planetary-scale geo-engineering, all other solutions are moot at this point.

I don't think people have understood yet the full implications of golbal warming and the response this will require.

On the other hand at a practical level it seems incredibly easy. Just direct, say, 3 trillion dollars every year toward geo-engineering and research, as well as producing good policy, mass-transit etc. — Jingo7

What is Mass-transit?

Public transport.

Public transport. — Jingo7

If someone who do not commute tell other people how to commute, that is not necessarily a good thing. I'm not saying you do, but that is a possibility in discussions like this. A lot of people do, for instance blame "capitalism" for causing problem when they themselves get the pleasure of not having to do a daytime job thanks to a social position guaranteed by some grandparent who made money enough to let relatives become scientists, artists or musicians, having the cultural capital to do that. One has to be very careful in discussions like this, not to talk about what "we" have to do when it is in fact "they" who will pay the price. You didnt, which is good.

That said, Geo-Engineering is a viable way to reduce impact of global warming, or rather, reduce global warming but I doubt that that will actually happen. But again, one never knows.

Well I feel like that covers only a small range of people, those who proscribe things that they themselves wouldn't have to do because they are shielded by money in one way or another.

Global warming is like a guest at a dinner party who embarrasses everyone, doesn't respect the rules of polite conversation, mentions the elephant in the room etc.

We could spend trillions on geo-engineering but we don't. We don't because rich people have all the money and states work for them. The logical conclusion is to get rid of rich people, but that's awkward because for many decades rich people have made us believe that they are gods.

What to do in such situation?

↪Ansiktsburk ↪boethius
Well I feel like that covers only a small range of people, those who proscribe things that they themselves wouldn't have to do because they are shielded by money in one way or another.

Global warming is like a guest at a dinner party who embarrasses everyone, doesn't respect the rules of polite conversation, mentions the elephant in the room etc.

We could spend trillions on geo-engineering but we don't. We don't because rich people have all the money and states work for them. The logical conclusion is to get rid of rich people, but that's awkward because for many decades rich people have made us believe that they are gods.

What to do in such situation? — Jingo7

That like the trillion dollar question and the right one. What to do?

In a situation where right wingers like me (in Scandinavia which is probably midway btw Democrats and Republicans in the US) tend to try to say that global warming isn't happening. But, being anti-activist-as-a-lifestyle I still would say that IF global warming was not probable you would have seen big studies by relevant institutions saying so. The economic backup for such studies should be no problems... but we do not see such studies, just odd scientist having doubt. So - as far as I am concerned - and, unlike some activists who probably sees fighting the global warming as a "goal in life" and in line with their red-green agenda, I sadly must believe the global warming is happening and that it will have consequences.

And it seems like most western countries are at that place. I do not see the situation is "something our lifestyle" has produced, capitalism or whatever. I come from a poor family, most scandinavians were around 1900, and the society has given my family a much better life, which I cannot for my life see as a bad thing. I would say that people being angry on "capitalism", should do some genealogy.

But, the problem is that our good efforts, to make life better, do cost a lot of energy, and that energy mainly comes from burning of fossil fuel.

Unless you start discussions from another standpoint I think you will be unsuccessful. You will only make the majority of people angry, and the majority will decide in some way. True, governments and big companies have agendas to make money but at the end of the day its about people.

And I think what is actually done, Windmills, solar power and - yes - nuclear power do work, energy is produced. And I think the psychological effect of that is good. As well as practical stuff people can do in societies where a lot of energy is consumed, eating less red meat, recycling, drive cars that have low emissions. That is important, to get people in favor of getting things done.

Then, bigger measurements are needed, maybe geo-engineering, maybe restrictions - including ALL energy consuming countries. It's not like Canada and Sweden that emit the most. But the world must be in a Corona state of mind to get things done. Sadly, Corona impact was very visible and very fast. Global warming is not.

What I wish is that people like my Countrywoman Greta Thunberg would try to side up with people having a good reputation even among "right wingers" of the world, like maybe Bill Gates, to de-activistify the question. It is much too important to become a flower power romance ingredient for children from academical families looking for "things to do with their lives". Which is, imho and to a large extent, how certain protests, and sadly also warnings by scientists(very seldom coming from a daytime worker background), are perceived by the people of the world not being left wing, daytime workers, and which will only do bad for getting things actually done.

And it seems like most western countries are at that place. I do not see the situation is "something our lifestyle" has produced, capitalism or whatever. — Ansiktsburk

How does this make any sense?

What has produced the pollution, if not capitalism (as is practiced today and since the industrial revolution)? and if not the lifestyles industrial capitalist growth has enabled?

Where is the cause, if not these things?

I come from a poor family, most scandinavians were around 1900, and the society has given my family a much better life, which I cannot for my life see as a bad thing. I would say that people being angry on "capitalism", should do some genealogy. — Ansiktsburk

Yes, capitalism creates winners and losers, and the winners tend to like their winnings.

However, regardless of social issues related to your statement, if the system isn't sustainable then who cares about standards of living meanwhile. It's like a captain that doesn't prepare a voyage where resources run out half way through and everyone starves to death, does it matter if the passengers were comfortable for the first part of the journey; does that excuse the second half of the journey being a tortuous hell?

And that, a tortuous hell, is what most passengers on earth are going to experience if today's capitalist system (whatever version of capitalism you want to call it) continues unsustainably.

If billions or more people starve to death (what necessarily goes with a globally unsustainable system), are you really willing to say "well, me and my Scandinavian family have had it pretty darn good; so, I think it was a good system that brought us here".

Of course, you can argue that the system is sustainable, that the climate and other biodiversity alarmists are wrong, but you recognize yourself that argument doesn't really work.

So, that being the case, you are basically saying "yes, the system isn't sustainable and we are moving towards the disasters all major credible environmental institutions are predicting ... but, it was good for my family for a bit, so I can't put the that into question".

It seems to me your family is a pretty small subset of the entire planet with all its inhabitants and life forms.

What has produced the pollution, if not capitalism (as is practiced today and since the industrial revolution)? and if not the lifestyles industrial capitalist growth has enabled? — boethius

What I don't like about this attack on capitalism is that it seems to imply that a leftist approach to life would have been carbon neutral.

Capitalism is a tool like a hammer.

What I don't like about this attack on capitalism is that it seems to imply that a leftist approach to life would have been carbon neutral. — frank

It would not. But a leftist approach government is democracy, which would be responsive to people's actual interests, like, you know, having a future.

Instead, we have the government of capitalism: oligarchy, serving only money and the monied.

It would not. — hypericin

Then what's the point in criticizing capitalism if the alternative is assumed to be no better regarding CO2 emissions?

It just reduces to criticizing contemporary humanity.

From the pov of your binary universe, where the alternative is either carbon neutral or no better than the current, your point is irrefutable.

your point is irrefutable. — hypericin

Ah, good. I like to be maximally irrefutable.

Though from the pov of the real world, you are just dense.

Like a one tree forest. Still utterly irrefutable.

hypericin is not saying that the Leftist alternative is 100% going to be just as polluting as capitalist production. He is saying a minor point, that the ecological record of the communist countries was/is not good at all. Nothing controversial here.

But if capitalism is "a tool like a hammer" like you say, then it is the wielder who really matters. There is no 'written in the stars' or totally worked-out blueprint for a post-capitalist society. The point is for men and women to have complete democratic mastery over the economy and all spheres of life, so that society only goes where its constituents will that it should go. In such a self-conscious society, the issue of global warming could be solved very simply. Nobody knows precisely how, but it is not superstition to suggest that with enough resources and a united planet, the conditions for technological mastery over the biosphere would be possible.

Nobody knows precisely how, but it is not superstition to suggest that with enough resources and a united planet, the conditions for technological mastery over the biosphere would be possible. — Jingo7

I assume you mean by working with nature as opposed to trying to supersede it?

No I'm not saying that. I really do mean it when I say the technological mastery over the biosphere. 'Working with nature', what does this actually mean? Nature is chaos, catastrophe, meaningless processes etc. The aim of a self-conscious society should be toward domination of these processes, whereby the reproduction of human society more and more relies on the 'artificial'.

Think of it like this. If you terraformed a barren planet, you would not be saying 'work with nature', you would be saying 'how can we artificially produce a society out of the bare bones elements we find on, say, Mars or Europa?' Here 'nature' as you are conceiving it (i.e. biological life) is non-existent, the only way to conquer these barren planets are pure artificial human productive processes, converting different elements, combining them, dragging ice asteroids into the atmosphere, digging boreholes or whatever.

This is exactly how we should think of Earth's biosphere. We are already 'mastering' this, but it is of course unplanned, chaotic, self-defeating etc. (i.e. global warming). Forget all that sentimentality about 'disturbing nature', we are already doing it, it is inevitable that there will be mass-extinctions and so on. The point is to 'disturb nature' in such a way that you have self-conscious and rational technological mastery over these processes. I am thinking of, why not, the rings in the video-game 'Halo', or the transformation of Mars in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.

But let's go even further. Once we rid ourselves of this religious-like superstition about 'not messing with nature (a nature which doesn't even exist the way most people conceive of it), why not go to the end? The human body, that fragile meat sack which gets cancer and so on, let's get rid of it. Why not upload our subjectivities into an artificial technological infrastructure? I claim this would be the result of a self-conscious societies' drive toward immortality, the end of ageing, disease etc.

It's not about 'superceding' nature, of course everything outside of human subjectivity does exist and you cannot exist outside of this material. It's about ending arbitrary processes like freak weather, ageing, even death.

The human body, that fragile meat sack which gets cancer and so on, let's get rid of it. Why not upload our subjectivities into an artificial technological infrastructure? I claim this would be the result of a self-conscious societies' drive toward immortality, the end of ageing, disease etc. — Jingo7

Of course we do not know if this is even a possibility, maybe subjectivity and meaning is inseparably linked with that fragile meat-sack. I mean, what's the point of thinking, a subjectivity, if you don't have some needy mortal body to keep alive... just computation for more computation sake until the heat dead of the universe? That doesn't sound very appealing to me.

You are right, it is possible that this physical separation of mind and body (in all relevant respects they are already separated anyway but that's another story) is impossible.

As far as concerns 'whats the point of thinking if you don't have a body?' I know what you mean but isn't it the case that in all ways that matter, you really do think without a body. Think about thinking, when you are thinking, are you really concerened/aware that you have a body? Is not the act of thinking itself it's own proof that we are not our bodies? When you are deep in thought, you are working on some ideas or whatever, it doesn't matter to you, you lose awareness even that you have a body.

Also why would this be an issue? Surely inter-subjectivity (in whatever form) would survive this 'upload'? I cannot imagine that we would all become totally insular self-referential computers, not at all. Surely human society would continue, simply that human beings become physically what they were spiritually all along, pure subjectivity. This is not about 'computation for computation's sake', I am not suggesting that we degrade the idea by associating this with meagre computing power (whatever that means). This would be society, but in a higher form.

Doesn't sound appealing? Well it doesn't sound appealing to me either! I am not suggesting this as an action taken tomorrow, but as one of the possible points a socially self-conscious (let me cut the BS here, I mean a communist) society would approach, long into the future, as contingent impediments to humanities' conquering of the galaxy and mortality are overcome. This is deep future, don't worry I will not now force you to climb into a USB stick or whatever.

As for the heat death of the universe, I don't see this as likely. More likely to me is that the universe is infinite. But even if entropy is real, I have faith (ok I know I sound insane) that man can conquer this entropy as well.

Working with nature', what does this actually mean? Nature is chaos, catastrophe, meaningless processes etc. — Jingo7

Aren't we a product of that chaos, catastrophe, and meaninglessness?

As far as concerens 'whats the point of thinking if you don't have a body?' I know what you mean but isn't it the case that in all ways that matter, you really do think without a body. Think about thinking, when you are thinking, are you really concerened/aware that you have a body? Is not the act of thinking itself it's own proof that we are not our bodies? When you are deep in thought, you are working on some ideas or whatever, it doesn't matter to you, you lose awareness even that you have a body. — Jingo7

Also why would this be an issue? Surely inter-subjectivity (in whatever form) would survive this 'upload'? I cannot imagine that we would all become totally insular self-referential computers, not at all. Surely human society would continue, simply that human beings become physically what they were spiritually all along, pure subjectivity. This is not about 'computation for computation's sake', I am not suggesting that we degrade the idea by associating this with meagre computing power (whatever that means). This would be society, but in a higher form. — Jingo7

I think human motivations (bodily) are behind the intellectual problems we work out. The process of thinking itself maybe isn't influence by it, but the initial motivation for it seems to be.

My reasoning here is that the physical, biological forms came first, and then we evolved thinking brains because it increased survival chances of some biological forms. So to me that is the reason d'etre of thinking... i'm not sure what to do with the idea of just taking that away, what would be the point of any of it?

Doesn't sound appealing? Well it doesn't sound appealing to me either! I am not suggesting this as an action taken tomorrow, but as one of the possible points a socially self-conscious (let me cut the BS here, I mean a communist) society would approach, long into the future, as contingent impediments to humanities' conquering of the galaxy and mortality are overcome. This is deep future, don't worry I will not now force you to climb into a USB stick or whatever. — Jingo7

Sure, I just wanted to voice some concerns with the idea of uploading digitally, which many futurist seem to take for granted.

As for the heat death of the universe, I don't see this as likely. More likely to me is that the universe is infinite. But even if entropy is real, I have faith (ok I know I sound insane) that man can conquer this entropy as well. — Jingo7

Yeah betting against entropy is insane ;-). But you know, all of this is far from settled, just the best guess we have based on current understanding.

I think human motivations (bodily) are behind the intellectual problems we work out. The process of thinking itself maybe isn't influence by it, but the initial motivation for it seems to be.

My reasoning here is that the physical, biological forms came first, and then we evolved thinking brains because it increased survival chances of some biological forms. So to me that is the reason d'etre of thinking... i'm not sure what to do with the idea of just taking that away, what would be the point of any of it? — ChatteringMonkey

Here of course I agree with you. But think, what really does a human being (as animal) need to survive? On pure subsistence, we need a little water, some food, a little exercise etc. And yet most of the articles of consumption are not for pure bodily subsistence. Our mind needs diversion, conversation, love, pleasurable sensation, diverse diet, meaningful work etc. None of this is simple subsistence, in fact if any of us were to eat porridge oats every meal (like one of our cabinet ministers here in the UK suggested that those on welfare should do to save money), we would go crazy, feel completely undignified, spiritually destroyed and so on.

On your second point, of course I cannot answer that immortal question, 'why/when did human consciousness emerge?' But I can answer the implications you draw from it. Human thought is no longer 'tethered' to biological considerations. That is, those processes that were once regulated by the biological order, have come to be fully regulated by that wholly distinct and higher order of being, the social order. You can also call this the 'symbolic' order or in Marxian terms, the moment when human society must be actively (consciously) reproduced by man himself, as opposed to the 'just being' of animals. That means that the human mind is forever separated from nature. We can only know that we were once 'natural' because we became (for whatever reason) separated from this nature. We can only see this point of departure after it has already gone forever. We can only 'see' at all, because we took this point of departure from nature. Now that we have the social order, biology doesn't enter into it. Our brains are exacctly the same as the brains of the ancient Greeks, and yet conceptually we are leaps and bounds ahead of them. If human thought was even remotely regulated biologically, this would be an impossibility. How can biology act upon 'you' if you can already, in thought, abstract yourself as a self? That is, if you can abstract an element from the chaos of nature in thought, you are already unbound by that chaos, that undifferentiated 'thing-in-itself that is nature (which doesn't really exist).

Sure, I just wanted to voice some concerns with the idea of uploading digitally, which many futurist seem to take for granted. — ChatteringMonkey

You know, I really find technology boring to be honest, and I am not familiar with futurist writings. Do you have any good reccomendations? My thrust is always first and foremost philosophical, but I try to take things to the end, and I see uploading as a nescessary possibility in any future society who's drive will consist in the conflict between the world of man (society) and non-human nature.

As for the link with what we have been saying and climate change, I hope it is evident that it is relevant. The way we ideologically conceive of climate change is most often by attributing to nature this 'humbling' power, as something that punishes the hubris of man. I hope I demonstrate here that I find this view revolting. I will write more on it later.

Here of course I agree with you. But think, what really does a human being (as animal) need to survive? On pure subsistence, we need a little water, some food, a little exercise etc. And yet most of the articles of consumption are not for pure bodily subsistence. Our mind needs diversion, conversation, love, pleasurable sensation, diverse diet, meaningful work etc. None of this is simple subsistence, in fact if any of us were to eat porridge oats every meal (like one of our cabinet ministers here in the UK suggested that those on welfare should do to save money), we would go crazy, feel completely undignified, spiritually destroyed and so on. — Jingo7

Sure there's of course other variables then mere survival to the evolution-equation, like procreation which has given life all kinds of exuberant stuff like the tails of peacocks... but I think all of this can ultimately still be tied back to the biological.

On your second point, of course I cannot answer that immortal question, 'why/when did human consciousness emerge?' But I can answer the implications you draw from it. Human thought is no longer 'tethered' to biological considerations. That is, those processes that were once regulated by the biological order, have come to be fully regulated by that wholly distinct and higher order of being, the social order. You can also call this the 'symbolic' order or in Marxian terms, the moment when human society must be actively (consciously) reproduced by man himself, as opposed to the 'just being' of animals. That means that the human mind is forever separated from nature. We can only know that we were once 'natural' because we became (for whatever reason) separated from this nature. We can only see this point of departure after it has already gone forever. We can only 'see' at all, because we took this point of departure from nature. Now that we have the social order, biology doesn't enter into it. Our brains are exacctly the same as the brains of the ancient Greeks, and yet conceptually we are leaps and bounds ahead of them. If human thought was even remotely regulated biologically, this would be an impossibility. How can biology act upon 'you' if you can already, in thought, abstract yourself as a self? That is, if you can abstract an element from the chaos of nature in thought, you are already unbound by that chaos, that undifferentiated 'thing-in-itself that is nature (which doesn't really exist). — Jingo7

I'm not sure I follow here... I think we are only ahead of the Greeks in scientific knowledge and technology. Because we can record that knowledge in writing and pass it on to next generations there's a progression to it, sure, but I'm not sure it follows that we have departed from nature or our biology. We use cellphones and the internet for instance to do what we essentially always did, communicate with each other, just faster and on a larger scale. This in particular I don't get:

How can biology act upon 'you' if you can already, in thought, abstract yourself as a self? That is, if you can abstract an element from the chaos of nature in thought, you are already unbound by that chaos, that undifferentiated 'thing-in-itself that is nature (which doesn't really exist). — Jingo7

You know, I really find technology boring to be honest, and I am not familiar with futurist writings. Do you have any good reccomendations? My thrust is always first and foremost philosophical, but I try to take things to the end, and I see uploading as a nescessary possibility in any future society who's drive will consist in the conflict between the world of man (society) and non-human nature. — Jingo7

It's not that I have read that many futurist per se, I mostly picked that up in the media I tend to follow... but Yuval Harari has a couple of books that you might call futurist, and he's generally a clear thinker. And then there's Nick Boström who deals with possible future scenario's, mostly from the point of view of existential risk, and those who work with him at the same institute.

As for the link with what we have been saying and climate change, I hope it is evident that it is relevant. The way we ideologically conceive of climate change is most often by attributing to nature this 'humbling' power, as something that punishes the hubris of man. I hope I demonstrate here that I find this view revolting. I will write more on it later. — Jingo7

Yes I do kind of agree with this, especially if this comes from some kind of dogmatic religious inspired point of view. But at the same there is a kernel of truth to this accusation of hubris I think. I've said something earlier along those lines. The way our cognition works is by abstracting away from the world, by cutting things up into little bits via language... which is essentially simplifying things so we can get our head around it. If we are dealing with complex systems like the biosphere this kind of simplified thinking can cause all kinds of trouble, especially if we have to much faith in our ideas... And there's some 'intelligence' to nature too, because it has been a process of trial and error that has been running for billions of years, evolving and adapting too 'itself'. Compared to that our trials and errors are still relatively shallow, so you know, maybe there is reason to not be too confident that we can do it better.

Yes, capitalism creates winners and losers, and the winners tend to like their winnings. — boethius

Capitalism has made few far more richer than others, but it also has improved our prosperity far more than central planning of socialism ever did. Worth mentioning that socialism was (is) far more disastrous for the environment. Environmental factors simply weren't thought of.

If we look at where we have been successful, we have the case of handling the ozone layer hole, which at the largest was in the Antarctic in 1994 and now is estimated to shrink in size to what it was in 1980. Let's look at just why we were successful:

- the problem was easily noticed and measurable.
- CFC gasses being the culprit was identified (as early as 1974).
- CFC gasses were used mainly by rich countries.
- there was will to take action on the problem (Montreal accord in 1987, Kyoto in 1997).
- replacing CFC gasses was totally possible and the development continues.

The rich countries reduced their use of ozone depleting substances by 99,2% where the developing countries reduced only by 72,5%. What can we learn from this?

The fact is that prosperous wealthy countries can adapt and change their production and set new rigorous standards were the poorest countries poorer countries aren't able to. This is important to understand when the issue is something like deforestation, which happens basically in poorer countries.

We can cope with the problems when more countries are like the Netherlands, less are like the DRC. It may sound paradoxical, but the truth is that more development will be the solution. We will have more awareness of the problems and more ability to cope with the problems, to change our ways. Yet if we have more failed states, more poverty, then less will be done.

Then there is the question of China. Again a non-democratic country where environmental issues aren't as important as in the West thanks to it's socialism (or fascism). To show how important China is when it comes to CO2 emissions, here's a telling video showing the total CO2 emission by country from the 1960s onwards. Notice what happens with China on this 2000s.




What China does is really the crucial issue.

Then there is the question of China. Again a non-democratic country where environmental issues aren't as important as in the West thanks to it's socialism (or fascism) — ssu

Comparing absolute emissions and relative rise in emissions isn't really telling us much, China has 3 times the population of the US and was a developing country. The US, the beacon of capitalism, still has double the emissions per capita of China.

What China does is really the crucial issue. — ssu

Yes, and while it certainly looks bad in absolute numbers (which does matter for the physics of climate change), I have more confidence in their ability to turn it around faster than Western countries. Apparently they tend to underpromise and overshoot on declared reduction-targets, unlike the west.

Comparing absolute emissions and relative rise in emissions isn't really telling us much, — ChatteringMonkey

When it comes to the actual climate change, it's absolute emissions that ACTUALLY DO MATTER, as you said later. Otherwise Qatar would be far more important than the US or China.

The US, the beacon of capitalism, still has double the emissions per capita of China. — ChatteringMonkey

And it also has the ability to decrease it's emissions, which it actually has. And likely can take the example from some states that have been more successful than others. The frightening aspect is WHEN China get more and more wealthier. There's a lot of more potential demand both in China and India than there is in the US, hence those countries are crucial here.



Again, the most important issue is to deal where the growth is. Not where positive reductions are taking place, even if continuing that trend is important.