Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Doug B said:

So far as I'm aware, both of the items in red have been initiated in earnest and can expect to gain in efficiency as time passes. My current vehicle is a good 50% more fuel efficient that a similarly-functional vehicle 25 years ago. And probably 20% of the homes in our immediate area of suburbia have solar panels installed -- up from zero 8-10 years ago.

...

While I have read that there is/was a major fire in the Amazon ... I am ignorant of the specifics. How it started (purposefully, through negligence, naturally, something else, etc.), how it's being fought, and what feasible measures can be taken.

...

So ... OK. Even with the measures you've mentioned, that's probably not 1% or 1% of enough to make a dent, correct?

 

Except this administration rolled back fuel efficiency standards two years ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doug B said:

 

So ... OK. Even with the measures you've mentioned, that's probably not 1% or 1% of enough to make a dent, correct?

It isnt wise to look at these things in isolation. Me recycling doesn't do anything to help our trash problem. Collectively it sure does though. 

And this is part of the problem and the point of her whole speech. Throwing your hands up and saying it's too hard, or it's too late, is unacceptable. It is neither of those things (hopefully)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

The question is how to we get the young people of China and India to get on board to hold protests and marches as well? But in reality China is the key player in this and this will be a most difficult task.

China's emissions passed those of the U.S. in 2005, and by 2012 had surpassed the combined contribution of both the U.S. and the EU.  China will be responsible for the most atmospheric carbon dioxide in less than 20 years.

China has regional company as well. The Asia Pacific region is home to both China and India -- the world's two most populous countries and the two largest carbon dioxide emitters. It is also home to other fast-growing and/or populous countries, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Japan. Over the past decade, this region's carbon dioxide emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 3.1% , which was nearly triple the global average. As a result, Asia Pacific is now responsible for well over 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

If only we could have created some kind of agreement governing commerce which included binding controls on the ecological impacts of doing business (as well as standards for compensation and treatment of laborers). Admittedly such an agreement is nearly beyond human comprehension...

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dawgtrails said:

It isnt wise to look at these things in isolation. Me recycling doesn't do anything to help our trash problem. Collectively it sure does though. 

And this is part of the problem and the point of her whole speech. Throwing your hands up and saying it's too hard, or it's too late, is unacceptable. It is neither of those things (hopefully)

And to piggyback on this, car and truck emissions are about 20% of all U.S. carbon emissions.  You double fuel efficiency, you cut those emissions in half.  That's 10% of our emissions right off the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

If we can figure out a real solution regarding waste... but we've got massive amounts of it already and it's already a big issue.

No it's not -- you bury it underground.  If you can't solve the NIMBY problem with that one, then all of this is hopeless anyway because all other coordination problems associated with climate change pale in comparison.  This is one of the easy ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

If only we could have created some kind of agreement governing commerce which included binding controls on the ecological impacts of doing business (as well as standards for compensation and treatment of laborers). Admittedly such an agreement is nearly beyond human comprehension...

I agree, having been to China and India a few times it does seem to be beyond human comprehension. India has more of a chance given the people are a little more aware but China will take decades if ever.

Edited by Da Guru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Da Guru said:

I agree, having been to China and India a few times it seem to be beyond human comprehension. India has more of a chance given the people are a little more aware but China will take decades if ever.

If the deal was right, China would make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

No it's not -- you bury it underground.  If you can't solve the NIMBY problem with that one, then all of this is hopeless anyway because all other coordination problems associated with climate change pale in comparison.  This is one of the easy ones.

This is a massive oversimplification.  Also, there's a finite amount of "underground" where you can bury material you don't want other people to get their hands on.  Our current facilities are thousands and thousands of acres and regularly have problems with accidental contaminant release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

The right wing reaction to Greta Thunberg’s speech, from the President on down, has been pretty disgusting.

First they ignore you

Then they laugh at you

Then they mock you

Then you win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

If the deal was right, China would make it happen.

if China gov't said, "no more C02 emissions", it would be done within a matter of a few years.  Centrally planned economies can respond quickly like that - no lobbyists, no industry trade orginizations, etc.  Just a bunch of rich men looking to make themselves richer.  When they are ready to flip the switch, it will get turned around fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

If the deal was right, China would make it happen.

Hope you are right but many feel whatever China agrees to you have to take with a grain of salt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

You feeel that way, good for you[---if you feel that you deserve to be lectured by a child, thats perfectly OK.  I however don't.  And I am offended by it.

We all deserve to be lectured no matter how old the one doing the lecturing is...especially when they are right.

And i could not possibly care less if she offended you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Da Guru said:

The question is how to we get the young people of China and India to get on board to hold protests and marches as well? But in reality China is the key player in this and this will be a most difficult task.

China's emissions passed those of the U.S. in 2005, and by 2012 had surpassed the combined contribution of both the U.S. and the EU.  China will be responsible for the most atmospheric carbon dioxide in less than 20 years.

China has regional company as well. The Asia Pacific region is home to both China and India -- the world's two most populous countries and the two largest carbon dioxide emitters. It is also home to other fast-growing and/or populous countries, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Japan. Over the past decade, this region's carbon dioxide emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 3.1% , which was nearly triple the global average. As a result, Asia Pacific is now responsible for well over 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Frustratingly, Green R&D continues to be a relatively neglected climate policy. Once clean energy becomes cheaper than dirty energy, developing countries will use it. How did the price of Solar PV drop 99% over the last 40 years? Thank R&D.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

We all deserve to be lectured no matter how old the one doing the lecturing is...especially when they are right.

And i could not possibly care less if she offended you.

I disagree completely and totally.  And whether or not you care about my offense is irrelevant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

offended :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, toshiba said:

Wait... You were offended because a 16 year old girl raised her voice?

 

O-M-G :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That was supermike, not me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I think it's possible that's more about the little conveniences that make life bearable, and getting used to them, and not being willing to disrupt them.  That the more pressure, difficulty, and responsibility there is on my shoulders, the more I want to say "Oh, to hell with it, I'm having a burger and then I'm driving 150 miles to a beach somewhere at 90 mph and #### the pollution."

But I don't think most kids are more willing to sacrifice.  They may not have the same skin in the game on certain sacrifices as adults, so some things aren't a sacrifice for them.  What things do you think kids are willing to sacrifice that adults aren't?

I don’t think we are disagreeing, my wording of sacrifice was a poor choice because giving up the same thing can be a sacrifice for one person and merely an inconvenience for another.

Those with less responsibility are more willing to give up money, a percentage of their pay check let’s say to combat an issue like this.

And donate time.  And give up life’s conveniences.

None of these “sacrifices” is the same for the average person in their teens or twenties, versus the average person with two kids, who needs to pay for braces and get them to soccer and dance class. 

Getting this latter group to care and give up something is the challenge.  Criticizing them for making decisions that any human would make isn’t going to get it done. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months back I was trying to explain to my father in law, who is not always up to date on modern day vocabulary, what a “snowflake” was. Don’t know how successful I was, but the next time I see him I’m going to offer up the example of this dude on the internet who said that he was offended by a 16 year old girl attempting to “lecture” him on climate change. That should do the trick. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

A few months back I was trying to explain to my father in law, who is not always up to date on modern day vocabulary, what a “snowflake” was. Don’t know how successful I was, but the next time I see him I’m going to offer up the example of this dude on the internet who said that he was offended by a 16 year old girl attempting to “lecture” him on climate change. That should do the trick. 

You may want to tell him about Squistion and others being offended by an emoji. That should help too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Duff Man said:

I don’t think we are disagreeing, my wording of sacrifice was a poor choice because giving up the same thing can be a sacrifice for one person and merely an inconvenience for another.

Those with less responsibility are more willing to give up money, a percentage of their pay check let’s say to combat an issue like this.

And donate time.  And give up life’s conveniences.

None of these “sacrifices” is the same for the average person in their teens or twenties, versus the average person with two kids, who needs to pay for braces and get them to soccer and dance class. 

Getting this latter group to care and give up something is the challenge.  Criticizing them for making decisions that any human would make isn’t going to get it done. 

Yeah, I think we agree on the basics.  I think the difficulty in these things is that people aren't making a decision based on reality, they're making a decision by refusing to think about it.  

"I don't have time to clean the dryer lint out of the vent" is a normal reaction, but if you realize your entire family could die if you don't clean it out regularly, you start to actually do it.

Her speech was predicated on the idea that people just don't think about what's going on and understand it, and if they did they'd do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

You may want to tell him about Squistion and others being offended by an emoji. That should help too.

I'd use the like button to bring up a picture of a laughing person, but I know that bothers some people.  Also, definitely not an emoji.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I disagree completely and totally.  And whether or not you care about my offense is irrelevant.  

Well, you don't have to lecture him about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

I disagree with the form the messenger took

so, is there a different reason you aren't lashing out at scientists who've been saying the exact same things with regard to climate change and pointing out the exact same consequences of inaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug B said:

So far as I'm aware, both of the items in red have been initiated in earnest and can expect to gain in efficiency as time passes.

I can't speak to the solar industry at large and how healthy it is, but I was under the impression that the subsidies for solar panels by the government were a big part of that industry.  With them going away, what is the projected path for solar without them?  I haven't seen any data on this, but it seems like a significant blow to the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

so, is there a different reason you aren't lashing out at scientists who've been saying the exact same things with regard to climate change and pointing out the exact same consequences of inaction?

And now class, the logical fallacy for today is ad feminam:

Quote

short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female...

Let it never be said you don't learn stuff at FBGs.

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

so, is there a different reason you aren't lashing out at scientists who've been saying the exact same things with regard to climate change and pointing out the exact same consequences of inaction?

And now class, the logical fallacy for today is ad feminam:

Quote

short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female...

Let it never be said you don't learn stuff at FBGs.

He's claiming this isn't the case....I am willing to hear him out :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Black Box said:

Please explain. Is the problem big, but not big enough that developing nations get a pass? Because it sounds pretty dire according to Greta.

The problem is big.  The countries that are primarily responsible for causing the mess need to take the lead in fixing it.  A major reason that the standard of living in the United States is so much higher than in places like China and India is because we've spent the last 100 years developing our country using fossil fuels.  And I hate when people say stuff like "China is as big a CO2 emitter as the U.S."  Not even close in per capita terms.  So we've done the lion's share of the damage in the past, and our citizens are doing the most damage in the present.  If anybody gets to do damage in the future, it's not us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that she changed her Twitter bio - ""A very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future."

Trolling the troll...

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Da Guru said:

Hope you are right but many feel whatever China agrees to you have to take with a grain of salt. 

It's true, but I think they have to know they need to make changes as well for their own sake. You've seen what it's like there, the amount of damage they're causing to their own immediate environment just isn't sustainable - they're poisoning and killing themselves. A thing I'm concerned about in relation to China is the amount if interest/investment they've been putting into Africa - I'm concerned that they're going to start externalizing the damage to there just as the U.S. has done to China and other southeast Asian countries.

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Commish said:

so, is there a different reason you aren't lashing out at scientists who've been saying the exact same things with regard to climate change and pointing out the exact same consequences of inaction?

Yeah.  because they are adults.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, timschochet said:

 

How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions?

Like @Doug B this line bothered me too, though I agree with her about the “business as usual” part. 

I have no idea whether her dismissal of “some technical solutions” is typical of those who have joined with Greta, but I continue to believe that technology is the only way out of this problem. Specifically, we have to come up with a way to make a non- carbon energy source as cheap and as profitable as carbon energy. Unless and until we do that we are never going to make the necessary transformation of society no matter how many Gretas warn us about the future. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Like @Doug B this line bothered me too, though I agree with her about the “business as usual” part. 

I have no idea whether her dismissal of “some technical solutions” is typical of those who have joined with Greta, but I continue to believe that technology is the only way out of this problem. Specifically, we have to come up with a way to make a non- carbon energy source as cheap and as profitable as carbon energy. Unless and until we do that we are never going to make the necessary transformation of society no matter how many Gretas warn us about the future. 

Technology is a way out, but behavioral changes are necessary as well. And that's the real problem, too many people are too lazy and too entitled to even consider making a few minor sacrifices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

It's true, but I think they have to know they need to make changes as well for their own sake. You've seen what it's like there, the amount of damage they're causing to their own immediate environment just isn't sustainable - they're poisoning and killing themselves. A thing I'm concerned about in relation to China is the amount if interest/investment they've been putting into Africa - I'm concerned that they're going to start externalizing the damage to there just as the U.S. has done to China and other southeast Asian countries.

It's also worth noting that while the US does almost literally nothing, China is actually building nuclear plants.  I certainly don't mean to make the Chinese out to be the good guys in this story, but they're at least taking advantage of technology that already exists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Like @Doug B this line bothered me too, though I agree with her about the “business as usual” part. 

I have no idea whether her dismissal of “some technical solutions” is typical of those who have joined with Greta, but I continue to believe that technology is the only way out of this problem. Specifically, we have to come up with a way to make a non- carbon energy source as cheap and as profitable as carbon energy. Unless and until we do that we are never going to make the necessary transformation of society no matter how many Gretas warn us about the future. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's also worth noting that while the US does almost literally nothing, China is actually building nuclear plants.  I certainly don't mean to make the Chinese out to be the good guys in this story, but they're at least taking advantage of technology that already exists.

Another benefit of a nationalized/centrally planned economy - there is no NIMBY to deal with, you stake out nuclear energy production zones and build what's necessary. Of course lots of very, very bad environmental problems have been caused by that same nationalized/centrally planned economy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, supermike80 said:
27 minutes ago, The Commish said:

so, is there a different reason you aren't lashing out at scientists who've been saying the exact same things with regard to climate change and pointing out the exact same consequences of inaction?

Yeah.  because they are adults.   

thanks...good luck to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

The problem is big.  The countries that are primarily responsible for causing the mess need to take the lead in fixing it.  A major reason that the standard of living in the United States is so much higher than in places like China and India is because we've spent the last 100 years developing our country using fossil fuels.  And I hate when people say stuff like "China is as big a CO2 emitter as the U.S."  Not even close in per capita terms.  So we've done the lion's share of the damage in the past, and our citizens are doing the most damage in the present.  If anybody gets to do damage in the future, it's not us.

So the problem is big, but not big enough to involve developing countries? I get what you're saying (the countries mainly responsible to this point ought to take the lead and sacrifice), but you are sounding like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Commish said:
23 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:
29 minutes ago, The Commish said:

so, is there a different reason you aren't lashing out at scientists who've been saying the exact same things with regard to climate change and pointing out the exact same consequences of inaction?

And now class, the logical fallacy for today is ad feminam:

Quote

short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female...

Let it never be said you don't learn stuff at FBGs.

He's claiming this isn't the case....I am willing to hear him out :popcorn: 

Guess this is where I misunderstood him...this is where I officially put the :bag: on...sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Guess this is where I misunderstood him...this is where I officially put the :bag: on...sorry!

Best course is to ignore - almost nothing gets said by that account that's worth reading.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gr00vus said:

Best course is to ignore - almost nothing gets said by that account that's worth reading.

So fragile.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Black Box said:

So the problem is big, but not big enough to involve developing countries? I get what you're saying (the countries mainly responsible to this point ought to take the lead and sacrifice), but you are sounding like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I'm not trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth.  Yes, developing countries need to make changes too.  I just don't think it's a good excuse for us to refuse to make changes here because we're not happy with the changes they've made there.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Does seem relevant but no, he was talking about the state of the worlds emissions in the past decade and looking toward the future decade. The whole point he was making is that the USA-EU has little control unless China-India adjust.

So forgot to mention that China is already adjusting. Interesting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

So fragile.   

Says the guy "offended" by a teenager telling him the same things science has for decades.  Really?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Best course is to ignore - almost nothing gets said by that account that's worth reading.

It's always good to keep tabs on all the various perspectives....this was one I had never run across before, so I thought I'd see how it went.  It's right up there with his polls shtick it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Says the guy "offended" by a teenager telling him the same things science has for decades.  Really?

 

But...I won't ignore.  That was my only point.  I can handle different viewpoints.   I enjoy it.  

And again, get off the "science has been saying for decades" thing.  I understand you believe climate change is real, that's not my stand. My stand is using a child like this was wrong.  100% wrong.  Especially the way she presented herself.  I do not appreciate being scolded buy a kid.   That was my push back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

But...I won't ignore.  That was my only point.  I can handle different viewpoints.   I enjoy it.  

And again, get off the "science has been saying for decades" thing.  I understand you believe climate change is real, that's not my stand. My stand is using a child like this was wrong.  100% wrong.  Especially the way she presented herself.  I do not appreciate being scolded buy a kid.   That was my push back.

 

Someone has got to scold people and it's not the adults in the room...so good on her.  The fact that it upsets you means it's working

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, killface said:

Someone has got to scold people and it's not the adults in the room...so good on her.  The fact that it upsets you means it's working

Cute.  But no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Commish said:

Do you disagree with the message or just the form the messenger took?  I don't recall you lashing out at the science community like this.  Seems odd :oldunsure: 

He did question all of their conclusions and suggested all those affected by climate change move to Greenland. 

Maybe Supermike is Tom Cotton?

Edited by msommer
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug B said:

 

...

While I have read that there is/was a major fire in the Amazon ... I am ignorant of the specifics. How it started (purposefully, through negligence, naturally, something else, etc.), how it's being fought, and what feasible measures can be taken.

Are you aware that Google is your friend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

He did question all of their conclusions and suggested all those affected by clinate chsnge move to Greenland. 

Maybe Supermike is Tom Cotton?

I don't remember saying affected by climate change should move to Greenland---Hmmm.     That one seems like a bit of a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.