When does climate activism become climate terrorism? — Agree-to-Disagree

Better sooner than later the way things are currently going. Can you give me your address for the list? — Benkei

The United States (and probably many other countries) traditionally has a policy against negotiating with terrorists. If you get too extreme then you will be shooting yourself in the foot, and you will make it even harder to bring about change.

I have the same policy. Which is why I wouldn't negotiate with governments to begin with.

, climate can terrorize if poked long enough collectively by humans.

I don't think any of the people here implying terrorism have solved an equation in the past 5 years to be able to pretend to know what they are talking about, neither are they in shape to go jogging to the local government building. Since there is no general environment thread, I will post this here while people worry about the fact that the Netherlands should be underwater 20 years ago:

If you get too extreme then you will be shooting yourself in the foot — Agree-to-Disagree

They are already metaphorically shooting themselves in the head by overdosing on cortisol coming from their neurotic worldview and oestrogen-filled tap water:

Among the plethora of chemicals released into the environment, much attention is paid to endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). Natural estrogens, such as estrone (E1), 17β-estradiol (E2), estriol (E3) are excreted by humans as well as animals, and can enter the environment as a result of discharging domestic sewage and animal waste.

These compounds can cause deleterious effects such as feminization, infertility and hermaphroditism in organisms that inhabit water bodies. — https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135422013586

I was wondering, there were already micro particles in the environment before plastics were invented. How come they are not a problem?

It's an invidious comparison. The environmental effects of estrogenic pollution are not negligible and the direct effect on humans include a drop in fertility and an increase in prostate and breast cancers. It's a problem worth addressing, and sooner rather than later.
Micro-plastics is probably more serious as a cumulative poison or rather cocktail of poisons that travels up the food chain like DDT or heavy metals and generally cannot be either sequestered or eliminated by the body. It is a major benefit of plastics that they are not biodegradable and that is why they are so popular as food packaging, electrical insulators and so on. Early electric cable was insulated with waxed cloth and wrapped in a protective sheath of lead. Ah, the good old days! It was as easy to recycle as it was dangerous to use.

But neither of these problems can compare with the existential threat that climate change poses to the whole of humanity. In this context, they serve as yet another diversionary tactic.

The only real question left is how we’re going to solve this existential problem. The solutions are already being employed and they’re worth looking at and engaging with, whether individually or, better, within a community or organization.

It’s no longer a debate about whether it’s happening (it is), whether scientists agree (they do), whether humans are causing it (we are), or what the effects are (bad).

My own interest is converting heating systems from fossil fuels to heat pumps (and better insulation), increasing the building of electrical transmission lines, and greening the electrical grid (including through nuclear). This means talking to one’s employer and getting them on board with IRA rebates, retrofitting buildings, talking to local officials, talking with state public utility commissions, going to (boring) meetings like zoning boards, etc.

Voting, divesting from fossil fuels (switching from banks to credit unions, for example), advocating for better public transportation, electrification of all school buses and postal trucks (numbering in the hundreds of thousands), plugging old oil sites, plugging methane leaks in fracking sites, and on and on.

Plenty of things to do. I think that should be the topic here. Perhaps “Climate change solutions” should be the new name, or a separate thread. All this one does is occasionally attract random ignoramuses who want to take yet another stab at the subject by exhuming tiresome lines of delay and denial, drowning out anything interesting.

I can see that there might be some leaching of chemicals into the body from micro plastics. But if there is toxicity, where has it come from? Are plastics made of toxic ingredients? Also how come all the other micro particles in the environment haven’t caused similar problems?
I can see that there is a food chain issue, but has it been demonstrated that they accumulate at the top of the food chain and stay there?

Asbestos is another; clogs the lungs and I think irritates causing inflammation lung cancers... Sahara sand blows into Europe occasionally. Sand in the lungs is also not great. Any foreign body can literally block the little tubes. likewise I think one can line the gut with impermeable indigestible plastic sheeting. There are also breakdown products particularly of things like PVC with chlorine atoms instead of the usual hydrogen that are not good for the system, but my chemistry/biochemistry gets a bit vague here. But organic chemistry tends to produce unwanted byproducts in a rather messy way - like dioxins for example. Generally, I'd recommend keeping foreign bodies out of the home body whether I'm talking to fish, fowl or fool.
But it's mainly a diversionary scare story, in the context of the current catastrophe of climate change. There's nothing quite like the danger of turning into a woman to exercise the terror circuits of the average cockwomble. Worse than being possessed by the devil!

Quite, a distraction. Often people get diverted onto plastics and recycling so that they continue using fossil fuels. While thinking they are doing their bit for the planet.

I will wait on micro plastics until there are firmer research results.

I was wondering, there were already micro particles in the environment before plastics were invented. How come they are not a problem? — Punshhh

Is every microparticle a problem? Volcanic ash is a strongly present microparticle in some environments long before plastics were a thing. Volcanic ash is toxic to humans. But snowflakes are a completely harmless microparticle.

I will wait on micro plastics until there are firmer research results. — Punshhh

Nope, you will wait on it until ABC News tells you you should worry about it — that is how it goes with you folks. None of you here are qualified to read "research", that much is evident.

None of you here are qualified to read "research", that much is evident. — Lionino

Yes, because so far you’ve proven yourself credible to make such a judgment. :roll:

Why not go troll somewhere else.

My own interest is converting heating systems from fossil fuels to heat pumps (and better insulation), ... — Mikie

The following excerpts come from the Financial Times article
https://www.ft.com/content/21beeb8d-08de-46db-97c4-a976d3f0b90c

‘Outraged and furious’: Germans rebel against gas boiler ban

But the proposed boiler ban has already led to a series of unintended consequences. Thousands of Germans are seeking to beat the ban by installing new gas boilers before the January 1 deadline set by the bill, locking in CO2 emissions for decades to come.

Around 168,000 gas boilers were sold in Germany in the first quarter of this year, a 100 per cent increase on the previous year, according to the ZVSHK, a trade association for heating, plumbing and air conditioning engineers.

"Wärmewende" means "heating revolution" or "heating transition".

“This Wärmewende is just not feasible,” said AfD MP Marc Bernhard during a Bundestag debate on the issue on Wednesday. “We don’t have enough skilled workers, we don’t have enough electricity and people don’t have enough money to pay for this madness.”

So add one more subject that the climate-denying troll knows nothing about: heat pumps. Cool. :up:

One more quote to the now-removed log of your intense bad faith and ability to dehumanize based on your ideology.

Neat that it got removed though. In fact, the entire exchange was removed.
Keeps you going. But I think it is ethically questionable that the Mods (probably you) have removed the evidence of this, in the thread from which it had been collectively taken. Seems modding isn't about improving the forum, in this case.

now-removed log — AmadeusD

If there’s an issue with moderation, take it up in feedback. I have no clue what you’re referring to and don’t mod threads or conversations I’m involved with.

So add one more subject that the climate-denying troll knows nothing about: heat pumps. Cool. :up: — Mikie

"heat pumps. Cool. :up:" says Mikie.

Was the pun intended Mikie?

The only real question left is how we’re going to solve this existential problem. The solutions are already being employed and they’re worth looking at and engaging with, whether individually or, better, within a community or organization.

There are issues that come with the speed of transition to net zero. Due to the inertia in the system and how late we have reached a point where significant change is happening. Many of the changes are now going to have to be more rapid than a seamless transition would expect.

A case in point is the role out of charging points for electric vehicles in the U.K. There are massive hiccups in the role out. This is resulting in big hiccups in the introduction of electric vehicles and a slowing of the transition. For the role out to go smoothly there needs to be a sufficient number of charge points in sufficient locations for drivers to be confident that they will be able to make their journeys without the problems of not finding a charging point, or finding a queue at the charging point they need to use.

This has resulted in lots of people deciding not to buy an electric car until these problems have been solved. Also the inadequacies of the electrical grid systems have been revealed meaning there is a requirement for massive national upgrades in infrastructure.

Now this is just one case, there are similar issues across the board in the transition. Many of them converging in pinch points, or bottlenecks. This trips up the progress, resulting in frustrations, liquidations, unrest and protests.

The more rapid these issues have to be dealt with the greater the barriers and obstacles there are. The greater the upheaval.

There is also a political fallout from this. The rise of far right populism and the miss information they promote. In the U.K. the Conservative Party has failed to invest in the required infrastructure, failed to provide incentives, failed to put necessary laws and regulations in place for over a decade, to speed up the transition. Now we are in the position where all this has to be done at breakneck speed and the Conservatives are split with a faction insisting on reneging on our net zero commitments. This plays into the climate denial that is sweeping the Western democracies.

Divide and rule politics and far right conspiracy theories threaten to derail our efforts to tackle the climate crisis and the more the necessary changes are delayed the greater the upheaval.

if there are deniers — Christoffer

Calling people "deniers" creates an "us and them" mentality. This makes it even less likely to get cooperation. People who call other people "deniers" are part of the problem, not the solution.

Calling people "deniers" creates an "us and them" mentality. This makes it even less likely to get cooperation. — Agree-to-Disagree

Good. They never intended to cooperate anyway, because they deny there’s a problem. Fuck ‘em.

The more rapid these issues have to be dealt with the greater the barriers and obstacles there are. The greater the upheaval. — Punshhh

Indeed— and we see this all over. The conversion to a better electric grid requires permitting, for example, and sometimes has to cut across people’s properties and they don’t want to lease. So it gets tied up in courts or eminent domain is invoked, and that angers people, etc. All kinds of problems like this will crop up. Electric charging stations, upfront costs, and so on.

But it’s going to happen one way or another, because it has to. Which is why the fossil fuel industry keeps politicizing things like induction stoves (which are awesome) and meat alternatives and blather on about freedom and masculinity. They selectively run ridiculous stories and constantly highlight problems— not constructively, because they don’t care in the first place, but in order to paint a picture of unreliability or socialism or whatever. Anything to delay.

Their propaganda works, gets into the brains of lazy consumers, and eventually gets regurgitated on Internet forums. See the past 108 pages for plenty of examples.

Good. They never intended to cooperate anyway, because they deny there’s a problem. Fuck ‘em. — Mikie

Many people will cooperate if they are asked nicely. But when you are nasty to them, and call them insulting names, then they are likely to dig their heels in. That means that you have probably lost the fight against climate change.

Which is more important Mikie, your ego or the fight against climate change?

Many people will cooperate if they are asked nicely. — Agree-to-Disagree

No, they won’t. Climate deniers are like creationists. It doesn’t matter how nicely you present evidence or argue your case. Carl Sagan was doing it respectfully, articulately, and reasonably — 35 years ago, in interviews, in congress, in lectures, on popular radio and television programs. Climate deniers remain with their denial.

I’m no longer interested in engaging substantially or nicely with those who deny reality and delay progress on a problem known decades ago. Especially on the internet. As I said: fuck ‘em. There’s better things to do.

Climate deniers are like creationists. — Mikie

Climate deniers remain with their denial. — Mikie

You seem to believe that all climate deniers are the same. At the extreme point of denial. In reality there is a spectrum of denial. Your attitude is making people move towards the extreme point of denial.

You have created a self-fulfilling situation Mikie. Kudos for making the situation worse.

. In reality there is a spectrum of denial. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, and it’s all both dangerous and immoral. There’s a spectrum of Holocaust denial too, and I likewise have no interest in engaging seriously with any of it. Again: there’s better things to do.

Thankfully, deniers are a small minority, both in the US and the world. So, fuck ‘em.

Thankfully, deniers are a small minority, both in the US and the world. So, fuck ‘em. — Mikie

Small ???

I think that you are in denial Mikie.

Some recent research, reported on this webpage:
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-02-16/despite-the-evidence-nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change

Despite the Evidence, Nearly 15% of Americans Deny Climate Change

In fact, more than 20% of the populations of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota do not believe in climate change, results show.

For example, less than 12% of the population of California does not believe in climate change, but northern California’s Shasta County had denial rates as high as 52%.

Similarly, denial across Texas averages 21%, but at the county level denial ranges from 13% in Travis County to 67% in Hockley County.

From The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/16/third-of-uk-teenagers-believe-climate-change-exaggerated-report-shows

A third of UK teenagers believe climate change is “exaggerated”

[teenagers are probably more likely to believe in climate change than non-teenagers - not really "small" Mikie]

From Statista:
https://www.statista.com/chart/19449/countries-with-biggest-share-of-climate-change-deniers



From The Conversation:
https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450

The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds

Australian news consumers are far more likely to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries.

The Digital News Report: Australia 2020 was conducted by the University of Canberra at the end of the severe bushfire season during January 17 and February 8, 2020.

More than half (58%) of respondents say they consider climate change to be a very or extremely serious problem, 21% consider it somewhat serious, 10% consider it to be not very and 8% not at all serious.

Regardless of political orientation, only 36% of news consumers think climate change reporting is accurate. This indicates low levels of trust in climate change reporting and is in stark contrast with trust in COVID-19 reporting, which was much higher at 53%.

The findings also point to a significant section of the community that simply don’t pay attention to the issue, despite the calamitous bushfires.

Small ??? — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, and becoming smaller. At least in the world. True, fossil fuel states have higher rates — US, Australia, probably Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. But still minorities even there. Even the oil companies pushing denial bullshit are themselves not really deniers.

At this point it takes a special kind of stupid— but whatever. People believe in creationism and that the Holocaust didn’t happen and in a flat earth. Eventually you got to let them be. No sense engaging seriously.

Heat pumps outsold gas furnaces again last year — and the gap is growing

According to data from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute released last week, Americans bought 21 percent more heat pumps in 2023 than the next-most popular heating appliance, fossil gas furnaces. That’s the biggest lead heat pumps have opened up over conventional furnaces in the two decades of data available from the trade group.

Good news— still a long way to go.

Something weird is going on in Australia. They’re gonna fry in a few years. Must be that problem with populism I was talking about.

Saudi is investing big time in solar, they know their oil is going to become a stranded asset soon enough. Russia knows this too, so want to grab Ukraines grain producing plains before it’s to late.

Heat pumps outsold gas furnaces again last year — and the gap is growing — Mikie

I fully support the use of heat pumps where they are appropriate. But as usual, the devil is in the details.

Heat pumps look good on paper, but there are issues.

The following quotes come from an article called "Are Heat Pumps a Climate-Friendly Solution to Reduce Carbon Footprint?"
https://climateadaptationplatform.com/are-heat-pumps-a-climate-friendly-solution-to-reduce-carbon-footprint

Swapping a boiler to a heat pump is more complex. There are costs and space involved. First, heat pumps are larger than gas boilers and require outside space. Second, heat pumps run at cooler temperatures than boilers do, and for the freezing winter temperatures, old and leaky homes comprise 60% of European properties.

These properties would need to be insulated, which means additional costs to homeowners on top of installing a heat pump. The price of switching to heat pumps could quickly become problematic and politically toxic, the article notes. The least that governments can do is to cover some of the cost and ensure that there are enough skilled workers to retrofit homes, the article suggests.

While many households in the U.S. could benefit from switching to heat pumps, the study also notes that wide-scale heat pump adoption may have unintended, undesirable consequences. Study authors simulated widespread heat pump adoption outcomes to determine the circumstance that makes heat pumps a wise choice.

“The key finding is that for around a third of the single-family homes in the U.S., if you installed the heat pump, you would reduce environmental and health damages,” according to Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan and a co-author of the paper (Rocheleau, 2021).

However, installing a heat pump would only benefit some. For others, installing a heat pump would be more expensive because the cost of generating electricity is higher than the cost of in situ fossil fuel use. Heat pumps are also less efficient to heat houses in colder climates and will increase power bills. In 24 of the studied cities, mostly in colder climates, peak residential electricity demand increased by over 100% if all houses adopted heat pumps, which would require grid upgrades.

The study suggests that switching about 30% of single-family homes to heat pumps will reduce harm to the environment and human health and allow savings for households. The best places to start are the parts of the country with a moderate climate. The authors also suggest cleaning up the grid as fast as possible to allow wider uptake of heat pumps and noting that heat pumps will continue improving and increase efficiency in colder climates.