That is exactly the kind of scare campaign the conservatives used in Australia to torpedo our perfectly feasible carbon tax. ‘A great big new tax on everything’ was their slogan. Bastards. If we’d kept it, we’d be cruising towards carbon control instead of thrashing about with bullshit sloganeering.

The verdict is still out on harm, — James Riley

My concern is what it might be doing to people's lungs, Could it be a factor in asthma? COPD?

This ad from the plastics industry was in today's Washington Post — Bitter Crank

Well there you go! I'm satisfied. Nothing to see here folks. I mean look, the mom and son are even wearing masks. I'm sold.

I see acts of kindness and generosity all over
— Xtrix

Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake
— Xtrix

There are some obvious reasons— mostly money
— Xtrix

So, being money-minded is genorisity then? — TheMadFool

Here's an instance where I should just ignore a question that is basically incoherent, but I won't.

(1) Being "money-minded" is not the same as being generous -- that's unrelated, not what I said or implied, and basically out of nowhere.

(2) What I was talking about with "mostly money" is taking out of context and was in response to a prior post about the reasons for why media isn't covering the story of climate change as well as they should. I mentioned money, because media is sponsored mainly by advertisers. The larger the audience, the more money per advertisement. If the stories don't get a large audience, or enough eyes or clicks, then there's less money to be made. I mentioned that as ONE reason, among others.

If you have nothing worthwhile left to say, it's not imperative to continue talking for its own sake.

But the issue of climate change, like other issues, should still be much higher on our priorities. We cannot act on it unless we acknowledge and prioritize it— however we then go on to contribute to solving it. We should be educating more people, organizing with others, making climate change an essential voting issue, and demanding appropriate funding to transition to renewables and help fortify the country from effects that are already locked in. All this is achievable, if people pay attention and lose their hopelessness. — Xtrix

We just have to educate and organize?
Sounds simple enough.
So should each of us try to organize groups in our towns or cities? (or find and join)
Demand our mayors and governors and local business leaders participate in meetings? (or maybe they are already and we need to join in)

Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do?

I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time.

Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do?

I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan

This is a rather pathetic set of assumptions and attitude. It's one thing to be lazy and not to care; it's another to be proudly parading that attitude as an example to others. You don't know what the people who post on here do or do not do regarding the global warming issue. You also don't know how many people who don't themselves contribute read and and are influenced by what they read on this site. :roll:

Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan

And to work out arguments. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind here. But it's better to engage and work out anticipatory argument in your own head, with the help of others, for use where it does count: representatives, community organizing, etc.

Voting for those who agree with you is better than trying to save the world by saving a gallon of gas. Voting to force everyone else to comply is good. They don't have a "right" to fuck the planet. We can tread on them if they are treading on us.

You don't know what the people who post on here do or do not do regarding the global warming issue. You also don't know how many people who don't themselves contribute read and and are influenced by what they read on this site. :roll: — Janus

:up:

Exactly.

Assuming the attitude you are replying to also tends to imply that we shouldn't really talk about anything, we're only here to kill time.

So why talk about climate change or war or the foundations of reality or knowledge or anything else? Any talk is as good as any other.

And most people browse, not posting anything.

There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population. — Xtrix

As I understand it the planet cannot sustain both important habitats, soils, fisheries and aquifers and a human population of more than about 12% of the present population if everyone were to enjoy a standard of living equivalent to that enjoyed in the so-called developed nations. And that might be one of the more optimistic estimates when the prosperity enabled by cheap fossil fuel energy is taken into account. This is simply a question of resources and their sustainable use; I can't see how politics is going to make any difference to that basic equation.

And most people browse, not posting anything. — Manuel

Yes, I imagined that was probably true.

Voting for those who agree with you is better than trying to save the world by saving a gallon of gas. Voting to force everyone else to comply is good. They don't have a "right" to fuck the planet. We can tread on them if they are treading on us. — James Riley

So we are going to vote Big Oil out of business? The higher ups are already working on "Smart Cities"...all this other 2030 initiative stuff. I don't know the details. But if you look around, there seems to be a consensus among those in power that there are, and have been, plans underway to induce a fourth industrial revolution.
I doubt our vote really counts for much unless Big Oil (etc) already agreed ahead of time...

Quote from World Economic Forum
"We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before."

This is a rather pathetic set of assumptions and attitude. It's one thing to be lazy and not to care; it's another to be proudly parading that attitude as an example to others. You don't know what the people who post on here do or do not do regarding the global warming issue. You also don't know how many people who don't themselves contribute read and and are influenced by what they read on this site. :roll: — Janus

Well, I like to exaggerate a bit for affect. I'm sure many people benefit from this site.

I doubt our vote really counts for much unless Big Oil (etc) already agreed ahead of time... — Yohan

Well, there's that too. LOL! I've no doubt that the plutocracy has the best and brightest advising them on when to move and on what to move. While they do have a vested interest in gleaning the maximum possible return on their historical investments, they also want to have a penthouse seat on the next new thing. Anything we can do to convince them that it is time to jump forward is a good thing. As a shareholder, one can always whine at shareholder meetings and they have to listen to you. I've done so for clients in the past, and at least it's on the record. Environmentalists will buy a share so they can have a voice.

Also, with the exception of Trump and kids, many of the old school have kids who are more progressive and they can be influenced. When little Billy and Sally are rolling your socks at the dinner table, you sometimes bend.

We just have to educate and organize?
Sounds simple enough.
So should each of us try to organize groups in our towns or cities? (or find and join)
Demand our mayors and governors and local business leaders participate in meetings? (or maybe they are already and we need to join in) — Yohan

It sounds simple, yes. But as you know, it involves all kinds of issues. Finding the time in our busy lives -- especially working 40+ hours a week, having a family, health concerns or limitations, endless distractions, exhaustion, etc. To say nothing about needing the attention and energy and interest needed to educate oneself, and the access to information and other resources (which can often be hard to find even with a decent library and internet access) -- it won't be found in mainstream media, usually.

That's why other people are important. But there's all kinds of issue there as well: ego, emotion, infighting, differences of strategies and tactics, different priorities, problems with leadership, finding enough people to commit -- finding places to meet, scheduling times that work for everyone to talk, setting an agenda, creating an action plan, and so on and on.

So I say "educate and organize," yes. And it does seem simple when it's just stated like that. But it's very hard indeed, especially in this divisive climate and in this culture that emphasizes individualism.

Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do? — Yohan

I have no idea. But I wasn't referring specifically to the philosophy forum.

I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan

Probably true, yes. But I know some people engage as well. I was just at a climate strike on Friday, plan on going to protest the last coal-powered plant in the state on the 3rd, etc. I make calls and write letters, sign petitions, donate money, go to meetings, encourage others to register to vote and actually do it, engage with selectman and state reps/senators, etc. It's not CLOSE to enough, and I take absolutely no pride in listing these weak, weak actions. I only say it to show that it's not necessarily ONLY talking.

At least you're honest about complacency. And you're not alone. But regardless, there are things you can do. Plenty of things. Even the smallest actions help. The first thing, however, is to really understand the situation. That's the education part, and the reason for my earlier post -- as a small attempt to give some facts.

And to work out arguments. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind here. But it's better to engage and work out anticipatory argument in your own head, with the help of others, for use where it does count: representatives, community organizing, etc. — James Riley

This is an excellent point and, now that you articulated it, I realize this is definitely a big reason for my participation here. It helps me hone my arguments and familiarize myself with counter-arguments. Most of the counter-arguments are so often idiotic it makes it really an exercise in controlling my temper than anything else, but there have been several which have been worthwhile (although almost never in the political realm, which is discouraging and which makes me wonder a bit about the usefulness and effects of "philosophy").

There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population.
— Xtrix

As I understand it the planet cannot sustain both important habitats, soils, fisheries and aquifers and a human population of more than about 2% of the present population. And that would be one of the more conservative estimates. This is simply a question of resources and their sustainable use; I can't see how politics is going to make any difference to that basic equation. — Janus

Well I'm willing to delve into this more if you'd like, but from the arguments I've read it's not very convincing. I used to put overpopulation as one of the more important issues, even underlying the climate crisis -- and of course there is some degree of truth to it. But I've since changed my mind, and I think with good reasons, some of which I mentioned.

However, I think once again this serves as an excuse to do nothing. Reducing population isn't an option -- it's not going to happen. Neither is the destruction of capitalism. If those are our only options, we're essentially toast. But that's really not the case.

Where do you get the 2% number?

Quote from World Economic Forum — Yohan

The Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce, as well as Big Oil themselves, have now shifted their tones. They acknowledge climate change, and the are now officially endorsing "stakeholder capitalism." Big asset managers, like BlackRock, are using their proxy votes to elect "activist" board members, and shifting their resources into ESG funds. All of this sounds great -- but it's basically greenwashing nonsense. What's interesting is the fact that they're even TRYING to greenwash, and thus not in complete denial -- as that is becoming untenable and unpopular.

This is an excellent point and, now that you articulated it, I realize this is definitely a big reason for my participation here. It helps me hone my arguments and familiarize myself with counter-arguments. Most of the counter-arguments are so often idiotic it makes it really an exercise in controlling my temper than anything else, but there have been several which have been worthwhile (although almost never in the political realm). — Xtrix

Yes indeed. The rock upon which we hone our edge must be hard, but smooth. If it's soft and mushy or rough and flaky it won't do you any good, at best, or even dull you, at worst. LOL! I know I feel dumber after engaging some of these rocks.

Where do you get the 2% number? — Xtrix

Should have been 12%, now amended. That said, one article I read claimed that only about 200,000.000 could be supported using organic farming methods. Petrochemical based fertilizers destroy the micro-organisms in soil, and so are long-term unsustainable. I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources.

Should have been 12%, now amended. That said, one article I read claimed that only about 200,000.000 could be supported using organic farming methods. Petrochemical based fertilizers destroy the micro-organisms in soil, and so are long-term unsustainable. I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus

200m is too many for me. Unless they are all attractive women.

I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus

The lifestyle of the average US citizen is extremely wasteful. We waste and pollute more per capita than almost any country -- I can find the exact numbers, but it's not good. If the world lived the way we do, we'd be toast. I'm not advocating that.

The fact remains that the major contributors to greenhouse gases are China and the US -- 45%. If you add the EU, India, Russia, and Japan -- you get to 70% of emissions. The rest of the world combined is 30%.

Focusing on global population is misleading. If we talk about that, we should restrict it to the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in history. Cut that population, and you cut a lot of problems.

200m is too many for me. Unless they are all attractive women. — James Riley

You're a better man than me if you could handle that many!

I agree with you about the wastage in the US. I believe we Australians per capita are slightly worse than the US for CO2 emissions, and there are quite a few countries that are way worse. As far as production of waste goes apparently Canada is the worst, the US third after Bulgaria, and Australia is not in the top ten.

The problem with cutting population in the countries which are the economic dynamos, that would lead to collapse of those economies because of the workforce needed to sustain them. This is obviously not the case in underdeveloped countries where many people are malnourished or starving just because the population is higher than can be sustained without outside aid. If the economically developed countries collapse or even go into profound recession, then aid to the countries that need it will be greatly diminished, perhaps even cease.

I agree with you about the wastage in the US. I believe we Australians per capita are slightly worse than the US for CO2 emissions, and there are quite a few countries that are way worse. As far as production of waste goes Canada is the worst, the US third after Bulgaria, and Australia is not in the top ten. — Janus

Yeah, Qatar is by far the worst in the world per capita. Of the larger countries, Canada is worse than both the United States and Australia. All very wealthy countries.

I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus

If you can’t aspire to ever-increasing material prosperity, which is what the industrial revolution and the idea of progress has brought, then what do you aspire to? That’s why I think a suitable social and personal philosophy has to be discovered. Something along the lines of E F Schumacher’s ‘Small is Beautiful’ - decentralised, community-based, with an emphasis on harmonious co-existence with nature. It’s really the kind of lifestyle that the counter-culture envisaged in the sixties, although I don’t know if it really became established anywhere. I suppose the Israeli kibbutz was a model although I read that it has plenty of social problems of its own.

But at any rate, it’s now in the public interest that such a social philosophy is developed. We can’t pin everything on endless growth. As I said before, I’m guiltily aware of that when super-market shopping. As it happens, I’m selling up and tree-changing over the next 6 months, it might be an opportunity to actually try and realise some of these ideas.

https://centerforneweconomics.org/

If you can’t aspire to ever-increasing material prosperity, which is what the industrial revolution and the idea of progress has brought, then what do you aspire to? That’s why I think a suitable social and personal philosophy has to be discovered. — Wayfarer

Agree. I suspect this is what's behind the growing minimalism movement (which like anything else has also been hijacked by posers). I've been practicing a form of this for around 30 years.

It seems the issues with nitrogenous and phosphoric fertilizers, which are indispensable to feeding nearly half of the world's present population are not confined to destruction of soils, but also have implications for global warming. Another issue is irrigation which leads to soil salination. Those implications need to be taken into account when estimating how many people the Earth can sustainably support.

“Foraging practiced by early gatherers and hunters could support as few as 0.0001 people per hectare of land and typical rates in more hospitable environments were around 0.002 people / ha . Shifting agriculture elevated that density by up to two orders of magnitude to 0.2 – 0.5 people / hectare ; the first societies practicing permanent agriculture ( Mesopotamia , Egypt , China ) raised it to 1 person / hectare . The best 19th - century traditional farming in such intensively cultivated places as southern China could support as many as five people / hectare while modern farming can feed more than 10 people / hectare and it does so by providing a much better average - quality diet than did the previous arrangements ( Smil 2017a ).”

https://eyeson.earth/blog-ii/2020/2/12/growth-by-vaclav-smil

In recent years concern has grown over the contribution of nitrogen (N) fertilizers to the environmental problems of nitrate pollution of waters and the pollution of the atmosphere with nitrous oxide, other oxides of nitrogen, and ammonia. These gases potentially contribute to the ‘greenhouse effect’ or global heating because of their increasing concentrations in the atmosphere and to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects the earth from ultraviolet radiation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01048758

So, how many people does synthetic nitrogen fertilizer actually feed? Below we draw upon several published estimates, which tend to converge on a similar share of the global population. Results published by Erisman et al. (2012) in the scientific magazine Nature are shown in the chart.7

These results also tie closely with Vaclav Smil’s widely-quoted estimates, which we discuss later.8

In the chart we see the actual global population trend in blue — growing from around 1.65 billion in 1900 to almost 7.4 billion in 2015.
The line in grey represents estimates of the number of people fed by synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. As we see, nitrogen fertilizers only became available following the commercialization of the Haber-Bosch process from 1910 onwards. Since then, Erisman et al. estimate it has supported 42 percent of global births over the past century. This amounts to 44 percent of the global population in 2000 being fed by nitrogen fertilizers, rising to 48 percent in 2008. Here we have extended this estimate to 2015 with the continuation of the assumption that 48 percent of the global population are fed by nitrogen fertilizers. Since the share supported by the process continues to rise, this may in fact be a conservative estimate. This means that in 2015, nitrogen fertilizers supported 3.5 billion people that otherwise would have died.
The red line represents the size of the global population which would therefore be supported without the use of nitrogenous fertilizers. This is shown simply as the actual population minus the number of people reliant on them for food production. Without this innovation, global population may have been reduced to only 3.5 to 4 billion people.

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-people-does-synthetic-fertilizer-feed

As I said before, I’m guiltily aware of that when super-market shopping. As it happens, I’m selling up and tree-changing over the next 6 months, it might be an opportunity to actually try and realise some of these ideas. — Wayfarer

:up: Good move!

I suspect this is what's behind the growing minimalism movement (which like anything else has also been hijacked by posers). I've been practicing a form of this for around 30 years. — Tom Storm

I’m envious of you. As I mentioned, we’re getting ready to sell the house we’ve lived in for 21 years. It’s a big place, now five bedrooms and three bathrooms, and the amount of stuff we’ve got is just ridiculous, we have two offsite storage units. (My other half has many virtues but letting stuff go is not amongst them :yikes: ) But I would like to explore a much less consumer-oriented lifestyle as part of the change. What’s that 60’s saying? ‘Be the change you want to see in the world.’

The deeper issue is that materialism is so deeply embedded in modern social theory. I’m sure that ‘celebrity stardom’ and ‘space travel’ represent the sublimated longing for immortality and heaven, the only kinds that physical philosophy can envisage. But I’m firmly convinced we’ll never meaningfully leave Planet Earth - or should I say, Starship Earth, as it’s the only starship we’re ever going to have. We have to learn to tend the Earth properly. To have a culture that is dedicated and aligned to a more simple and humanistic way of life is going to take a radical change in social philosophy and culture, which I think is going to be imposed rather than chosen freely.

Here's an instance where I should just ignore a question that is basically incoherent, but I won't.

(1) Being "money-minded" is not the same as being generous -- that's unrelated, not what I said or implied, and basically out of nowhere.

(2) What I was talking about with "mostly money" is taking out of context and was in response to a prior post about the reasons for why media isn't covering the story of climate change as well as they should. I mentioned money, because media is sponsored mainly by advertisers. The larger the audience, the more money per advertisement. If the stories don't get a large audience, or enough eyes or clicks, then there's less money to be made. I mentioned that as ONE reason, among others.

If you have nothing worthwhile left to say, it's not imperative to continue talking for its own sake. — Xtrix

I'm sorry but it was you who brought up money as a/the reason why climate activists have slipped up in their mission to get the movers and shakers of the world to act.

When I ran with that and took it to its logical conclusion - greed - you object. That's odd and, might I add, incoherent.

I'm sorry but it was you who brought up money as a/the reason why climate activists have slipped up in their mission to get the movers and shakers of the world to act.

When I ran with that and took it to its logical conclusion - greed - you object. That's odd and, might I add, incoherent. — TheMadFool

There's a very easy way to check this, you know.

The simple fact is climate change, suppose it's true, hasn't produced the desired effect at the level of society - governments, the powers that be - where it could be dealt with in the right way. Why?
— TheMadFool

There are some obvious reasons— mostly money. The fossil fuel industry is massive, and they lobby, bribe, and propagandize very well. — Xtrix

Yes, money seems to be the prime suspect. It's the obvious choice from any list of reasons why there are climate deniers. My question then is, does the buck have to stop there? I'm calling for a deeper analysis of money. Greed seems to stick out like a sore thumb but then that's how mother nature - evolution - made us over millions of years with good results — TheMadFool

I'm not sure where you're struggling. You asked why society (governments, powers that be) hasn't dealt with climate change the right way. I said there are some obvious reasons (notice this is plural), and said "mostly money." I also mentioned lobbying and propaganda. You took the part about money as the "prime suspect", which is fine, and then went on to talk about greed. You said it's part of human nature, and a primary part. I disagreed, saying I see generosity and caring around a lot as well. To which you then looped back to the beginning and wrote:

So, being money-minded is genorisity then? — TheMadFool

Which is completely incoherent. I never once said climate activists "slipped up" in their mission to push governments and the "powers that be" to act. Rather, the reason for the inaction, as I mentioned before, is largely because this industry earns them a lot of money and do not want it changed. They also buy off politicians, lobby, and use the media to propagandize.

So I don't know what you're talking about. To make it even clearer, here are my two claims:

(1) There has been no state action on climate change because politicians are bought by the corporate sector, especially the fossil fuel industry.

(2) Greed is not central to human nature.

It looks like you're right and I'm wrong. I'm guilty of a non sequitur. Sorry to have wasted your time. I'll have to be more careful next time around.

In my defense though I see a lot of very intelligent members home in on why climate action is such a long-drawn-out process - there's an overall consensus that the culprit is money. Think of it, even someone like you who doesn't think this way mentions money as, at a bare minimum, a contributory factor. No smoke without fire, right?

The reason I broached the issue of human nature is I wanted to dig a little deeper; you know, get to the bottom of this puzzle which is both intriguing and equally saddening (humanity is committing mass suicide by becoming the instrument of its own extinction and we're taking a huge chunk of the biosphere with us - suicide bomber-like). What about us, perhaps some kind of an innate trait, drives climate change? After all, this is man-made climate change.

A brilliant analysis of climate denial:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/01/if-you-cant-deny-it-downplay-it