see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity. — Hanover

There's the rub. Capitalism isn't the defining feature of humanity, it is one feature of human life. Unfortunately, capitalism functions not only to maximize concentration of capital, as Marx describes it, it maximizes concentration on capital. That is, it strives to assimilate everything into an economic viewpoint. However not every value can be effectively understood in economic terms. Attempting to put a price on human dignity, for example, can seem unreasonably expensive, from a capitalistic perspective. In fact, what is unreasonable is reducing human dignity to economic terms. Likewise for the planet. The planet may be morally neutral, but humans are not; and they rely on the planet as part of their ongoing well-being.

Capitalism isn't the defining feature of humanity, — Pantagruel

No, but it's profoundly shaped what we are as a species today:

However not every value can be effectively understood in economic terms. Attempting to put a price on human dignity, for example, can seem unreasonably expensive, from a capitalistic perspective. In fact, what is unreasonable is reducing human dignity to economic terms. Likewise for the planet. The planet may be morally neutral, but humans are not; and they rely on the planet as part of their ongoing well-being. — Pantagruel

If we pivot toward acting to secure the well-being of the global biosphere, what would that look like? What would we have to become in order to do that?

That doesn't make sense to me. First of all, demand is driven mostly by consumer society "the rich North", which are countries that have managed to align on a lot of policies already. If we change what we allow to be imported, we can effectively change policy abroad without getting those countries explicitly on board. — Benkei

You're suggesting an alignment by the rich north to impose economic sanctions on China and Russia in the hopes of altering their behavior and bringing them in compliance with Western economic policy. Seems like a hostile approach that might result in worse immediate outcomes than the long range consequences of global warming.

Looking at this the other way, would the US alter its policies based upon Chinese tariffs, or would it double down on the idea of achieving economic independence? I tend to think the latter, which just means that I don't think we can expect to force our opposition to our way of thinking by withholding some of the things they want.

Second, even if that doesn't work, our behaviour will change the speed at which the climate crisis unfolds, giving ourselves for time to adapt. — Benkei

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. If that is the case, maybe focus all our attention right now on finding methods to adapt and allowing climate change to continue occurring at its current pace.

For example, if the water is spilling over the dam, we could throw bags on there to give us ten years (instead of five) to figure out how to protect the village below before the dam fully collapses or we could just start figuring out how to protect the village right now in anticipation of the dam fully collapsing in five years. That is, do I want 10 years of expensive, futile labor or 5 years of status quo, followed by the same outcome that I more quickly prepared for.

We could argue over which idea is best, but they are both reasonable alternatives.

Third, a lot of adaptation will already be in place of we start now instead of later, making it cheaper, more manageable and less disruptive. — Benkei

I think we should start now. That's what I was saying. Chop chop.

Fourth, I don't believe where there's an issue that affects us all we cannot find common ground. — Benkei

That's just unfortunately not the case. It's why there is war all over the world. I'd like to think we could sit down with Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else and work through all this. If we could do that, then we'd resolve issues far more pressing than climate change as well.

We are not having to do it without China. At the moment, we are having to do it without you. — unenlightened

:rofl:

I suppose I could better cooperate from time to time.

The truth is though that my carbon footprint isn't part of the real problem. I'm just a rank and file citizen, limited to purchasing whatever might be in the marketplace, which means I can't buy a toilet that uses the amount of water I had when I was younger and I can't fill my car with fully leaded gasoline. I'm doing my share willfully or not, but it's all doubtfully doing a whole lot of anything.

The truth is though that my carbon footprint isn't part of the real problem. — Hanover

I agree your carbon footprint isn't the issue, it was more your lack of support I was lamenting. That dam bursting in perhaps a century or so is going to raise sea levels and flood some quite large villages.

There is still some uncertainty about the full volume of glaciers and ice caps on Earth, but if all of them were to melt, global sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (approximately 230 feet), flooding every coastal city on the planet.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20some%20uncertainty,coastal%20city%20on%20the%20planet.

That's a lot of adapting to do, before any consideration of the actual temperature and climate changes. Is anyone quickly preparing for that? Or slowly?

If we pivot toward acting to secure the well-being of the global biosphere, what would that look like? What would we have to become in order to do that? — frank

Since the "well-being of the global biosphere" is synonymous with the healthy balanced operation of its component systems, of which we are one, I can only surmise that it would look like an improvement.

Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"?

Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"? — Pantagruel

Probably not worse. In the 1970s there was a lot of focus on reducing pollution and managing the environment intelligently. A lot of that is still in place, though eroded by conservative policies.

I was talking about a bigger transition to managing the environment on a global level; managing the transition out of a growth model, managing the transition to non-carbon based energy sources. But more, what would we have to become to carry those changes forward on a permanent basis? A global government? A new religion?

I think if you want something to become real, you have to imagine it. You can't bring about change by wagging an index finger. You know?

think if you want something to become real, you have to imagine it. You can't bring about change by wagging an index finger. You know? — frank

One-hundred percent. Presumably there will be an increase in the general level of social awareness, out of which consensus emerges the forms of governance we deem acceptable. In Canada, there is a growing trend where the government sponsors and supports indigenous-led environmental initiatives.
e.g. Natural Climate Solutions
Area-based Conservation

I'd go one better, and get behind indigenous-led governance. Our indigenous groups have always attempted to live in harmony with nature. It's an attitude whose time is long overdue. If you look at the real numbers of politicians involved criminal self-promotion in violation of the public trust, the need for a really new approach seems clear.

If the goal is in reducing the environmental impact of humanity in the planet, my focus is terribly flawed. If it's the other goals I've pointed out, it's not. — Hanover

I think attaining these other goals cannot be separated from humanities impact on the planet. It's not only about people having different values, but also about not fully thinking through or acknowledging the ramifications and impacts of climate change and other ecological issues we are facing now. If we do little to mitigate, we'll have a progressively harder time to increase or even maintain standards of living.

I do share your scepticism about the effectivity of global cooperation on this. Geo-political interests and competitivity-loss make it very difficult. But at the same time, if shared interests become high enough in maintaining some semblance of a liveable biosphere, maybe they can come to some minimal deal.

One-hundred percent. Presumably there will be an increase in the general level of social awareness, out of which consensus emerges the forms of governance we deem acceptable. In Canada, there is a growing trend where the government sponsors and supports indigenous-led environmental initiatives.
e.g. Natural Climate Solutions
Area-based Conservation

I'd go one better, and get behind indigenous-led governance. Our indigenous groups have always attempted to live in harmony with nature. It's an attitude whose time is long overdue. If you look at the real numbers of politicians involved criminal self-promotion in violation of the public trust, the need for a really new approach seems clear. — Pantagruel

In Europe there already has been a decent amount of social awareness of the problem. One war and energy-prices skyrocketing, and that social awareness gets thrown by the wayside... people will choose short term energy-security over long-term ecological impact every time.

The real issue is that our whole economy and society is built on fossil fuels. Aside from energy in the most dense and use-friendly form, plastics, steel, fertilizer, concrete, etc etc.... all the pillars of our economy are derived from refining fossil fuels. We have no idea how to replace those "on scale".

Advocates of a green transition, or green growth have no idea what they are talking about from any practical point of view (engineering, materials, financial, energy), it's pure political theory-crafting without any base in reality.

The reason indigenous governance and harmonious living with nature won't save us should be clear, we are with 8 billion people living in a globalised high tech world... that is a totally different world from the one in which indigenous people developed their ideas.

We do need a new approach yes, one that is serious about what can be done and takes all the different constraints into consideration.

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. — Hanover

I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The damage has already been done and we're gonna feel some pain at the very least (though the degree of course is still dependent on present action).

So I take it you accept some action on addressing climate change even if you disagree with certain approaches like tariffs on polluting countries or regulations on fossil fuels? Sorry if I'm being annoying but I just want to get an idea of where you're coming from.

I was talking about a bigger transition to managing the environment on a global level; managing the transition out of a growth model, managing the transition to non-carbon based energy sources. But more, what would we have to become to carry those changes forward on a permanent basis? A global government? A new religion?

I think if you want something to become real, you have to imagine it. You can't bring about change by wagging an index finger. You know? — frank

This sounds reasonable, but I don't think this is how it actually works, at least not on the societal scale. How many times in history has a giant transition really been the result of people imagining a new world? I would guest not that many times.

How we get to a new system, is the previous system breaking and being forced to adapt to new circumstances. Necessity is the mother of invention.

This is also why people are having difficulty envisioning the future now (and why I think all current political ideologies are totally off base), we can't predict and see past a phase shift.

The reason indigenous governance and harmonious living with nature won't save us should be clear, we are with 8 billion people living in a globalised high tech world... that is a totally different world from the one in which indigenous people developed their ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

The idea that the environment needs to be safeguarded because it is essential to life scales up just fine as far as I can see.

The reason indigenous governance and harmonious living with nature won't save us should be clear, we are with 8 billion people living in a globalised high tech world... that is a totally different world from the one in which indigenous people developed their ideas.
— ChatteringMonkey

The idea that the environment needs to be safeguarded because it is essential to life scales up just fine as far as I can see. — Pantagruel

It doesn't work because in a global economy you get outcompeted by those that cannibalize the environment for any kind of edge... so then there's a systemic pressure against this idea. I personally like it to be clear.

Also I would say that there is a real tension between feeding all of the worlds population and safeguarding the environment. At this point we probably need to continue large-scale mono-culture to get high enough yields... and this is highly destructive for the environment, so much so that it is probably the main cause for bio-diversity loss.

How we get to a new system, is the previous system breaking and being forced to adapt to new circumstances. Necessity is the mother of invention.

This is also why people are having difficulty envisioning the future now (and why I think all current political ideologies are totally off base), we can't predict and see past a phase shift. — ChatteringMonkey

True, but when we pick up the pieces, maybe we'll remember the things we dreamed of before it all fell apart.

I cited my source for the proposition that climate change policies that are not adhered to by major climate change contributors will not be effective. — Hanover

It’s the new line for those who seek to delay what needs to be done: China. The reality is that China has taken bolder action on climate change then the US, which is embarrassing. Up until the IRA, the US had next to nothing noteworthy.

Yes, China and India will have to cut emissions drastically. But we have less control over that than we do our own behavior and policies — and, as a global superpower, our leadership sends a clear message to the rest of the world.

So this reasoning is, putting it as politely as I can, deeply flawed. We can and should do as much as possible to cut emissions as soon as possible and as drastically as possible — regardless of what China or India do. No sense waiting around for other countries to lead the way when we’re supposedly the leader.

If we do achieve that utopian state, let's first get Russia out of Ukraine. That seems more pressing than the smoke in New England. — Hanover

For the record, this is a strawman. No one is claiming the goal is utopia— nor is utopia necessary, any more than dealing with the ozone hole.

The invasion of Ukraine is important, of course. But just because this is true doesn’t mean unprecedented wildfires whose smoke has wafted throughout the northeast should be trivialized. That “smoke in New England” isn’t just a few rich people being inconvenienced, it’s a sign of what’s in store.

This isn't ignorance at all. It's an evil to a competing worldview I don't share. I see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity. — Hanover

It really is ignorance. You don’t have to oppose capitalism — as I happen to — to have sensible solutions. A good example is Jeremy Grantham, a capitalist if there ever was one: https://youtu.be/sAHj6mJrzns

Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"? — Pantagruel

What’s funny is that there’s plenty of profit to be made and plenty of work to be done. We need to electrify everything, which means transforming our electric grid— and retrofitting buildings, producing more heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, wind turbines, EVs, etc etc. We can use government subsidy and investment to help the transformation— just as we did with the fossil fuel based economy.

None of this has anything to do with destroying capitalism, really — only a psychotic and vicious variation of capitalism, one that’s dedicated to destroying the normal functioning of human life to serve the interests of Exxon.

None of this has anything to do with destroying capitalism, really — only a psychotic and vicious variation of capitalism, one that’s dedicated to destroying the normal functioning of human life to serve the interests of Exxon. — Mikie

I'm ok with capitalism. But it clearly requires stricter regulation. A socialistically-managed capitalism could work.

You're suggesting an alignment by the rich north to impose economic sanctions on China and Russia in the hopes of altering their behavior and bringing them in compliance with Western economic policy. Seems like a hostile approach that might result in worse immediate outcomes than the long range consequences of global warming.

Looking at this the other way, would the US alter its policies based upon Chinese tariffs, or would it double down on the idea of achieving economic independence? I tend to think the latter, which just means that I don't think we can expect to force our opposition to our way of thinking by withholding some of the things they want. — Hanover

There's nothing hostile about raising levies on certain types of products or products from certain countries. This already happens with anti-dumping duties and tax treaties or in attempts to steer consumer choices. Obviously, changing consumer choices through tax discentives/incentives is not an exact science but I doubt solar panels would have been as popular now without them.

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. If that is the case, maybe focus all our attention right now on finding methods to adapt and allowing climate change to continue occurring at its current pace.

For example, if the water is spilling over the dam, we could throw bags on there to give us ten years (instead of five) to figure out how to protect the village below before the dam fully collapses or we could just start figuring out how to protect the village right now in anticipation of the dam fully collapsing in five years. That is, do I want 10 years of expensive, futile labor or 5 years of status quo, followed by the same outcome that I more quickly prepared for.

We could argue over which idea is best, but they are both reasonable alternatives. — Hanover

I don't think the analogy works because buying more time usually consists of protective measures and as such this is not really mutually exclusive. More like which combination of measures is the most effective. I think a lower energy dependence for production and services, which directly correlates to CO2 levels, is both environmentally and economically sound if the increased efficiency doesn't lead to higher usage. A lower dependence will mean you're less likely to be affected by disruptive economic events (wars, sanctions, etc.).

That's just unfortunately not the case. It's why there is war all over the world. I'd like to think we could sit down with Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else and work through all this. If we could do that, then we'd resolve issues far more pressing than climate change as well. — Hanover

But historically it has. There are a multitude of multilateral treaties that prove even enemies will agree on all sorts of things. WTO, UN, Geneva and the Hague conventions, Vienna Convention on the laws of treaties, Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, etc.

But historically it has. There are a multitude of multilateral treaties that prove even enemies will agree on all sorts of things. WTO, UN, Geneva and the Hague conventions, Vienna Convention on the laws of treaties, Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, etc. — Benkei

And the Montreal Protocol that has been ratified by all member states of the United Nations.

I guess their efforts sometimes pay off, just takes a mob of loud anonymous creeps.

TV meteorologist quits after receiving threats and harassment over climate change coverage
^{— Rachel Ramirez, Laura Paddison · CNN · Jun 23, 2023}

Gloninger’s experience is not an isolated one.

@ChrisGloninger · Jul 16, 2022

The CNN article has various links.

What the heck?

Interesting trial in Montana going on right now. A group of children have sued the state government for violating the state constitution by encouraging fossil fuel use. I imagine many more of these lawsuits are in the works. The trial has ended and judge’s orders are expected in a few weeks.

https://mtclimatecase.flatheadbeacon.com/latest-updates/

Held v. Montana is the case.

Massive wildfires in Canada still raging.
Smoke blanketing the northern US.
Extreme heat in Texas (upwards of 110-120 degrees) — hotter than 99% of the world at some points.

Another summer, more records breaking and more once-in-a-generation events every month.

But at least climate change is a Chinese hoax. So nothing to worry about.

A good thing can be overdone, losing its potency.

What are you talking about?

Some interesting and encouraging news:

If goals set under the Paris Agreement are met, the world may hold warming well below 2°C (1); however, parties are not on track to deliver these commitments (2), increasing focus on policy implementation to close the gap between ambition and action. Recently, the US government passed its most prominent piece of climate legislation to date—the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA)—designed to invest in a wide range of programs that, among other provisions, incentivize clean energy and carbon management, encourage electrification and efficiency measures, reduce methane emissions, promote domestic supply chains, and address environmental justice concerns (3). IRA’s scope and complexity make modeling important to understand impacts on emissions and energy systems. We leverage results from nine independent, state-of-the-art models to examine potential implications of key IRA provisions, showing economy-wide emissions reductions between 43 and 48% below 2005 levels by 2035.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg3781

It’s a start.

Hottest global average in 100,000 years.

You aint seen nothing yet.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950

Nothing to see here. Carry on.

recent research in the Netherlands: Biodynamic farming turns out to have better soil quality and therefore higher yields of crop without spending any money on fertiliser because, surprise surprise, nature is perfectly capable of making stuff grow efficiently. Nature is cheap and efficient if you let it do its thing.