I've been reflecting on my position/view on climate change. I feel like I've accidentally ended up in the in-group out-group mentality. Which is not healthy.
But also, clearly I'm not a part of the problem. I don't drive, don't buy compulsively, don't fly often, shop locally and what not - everything asked to help the environment. So the problem must exist outside. And I feel I must address it - I literally felt winter disappeared where I live.
How can I point to someone/something and say "this is a problem, go fix it" without first identifying myself doing more then good enough?
9 months ago
@lykso I agree. But everyone acting like a saints, if successful, is guarenteed to work. While us tech-ing and engineering to create better energy/transport/farming is not. We have so many failed climate solutions. CCS, algae bioreactors, wave energy (it's catching up tho), BECCS. Add on push backs from 1st world citizens who don't want renewable energies in their backyard. I am loosing trust in our ablity to fix climate with this route.
I don't know. I want a guarenteed future. Even if that means everyone is worse off in the short term. I'll give the book a read. 路 8 months ago
@haze Yeah, I don't have a whole lot of trust in market-based solutions. There might be something in uniting the labor movement with the climate movement. "Climate Change as Class War" really influenced my thinking on this subject, even if it's not terribly well-written/structured.
As far as uniting consumers goes: I don't think you'll get very far with anything that requires people to become self-sacrificing saints en masse. With a labor-based angle, you can at least try to align people's material interests with those of the environment, which should give you a *chance* at creating a popular movement. 路 8 months ago
It always comes back to this for me, every time: there are too many people. 路 8 months ago
@lykso, indeed BP coined the carbon footprint, and they along with other players, want to trade the carbon allowances. If we build our own 'crap' and don't ship 'crap around the world' we blast less poison in the air. But then China will not earn our money and globalists retailers (Amazon) will not be able to to man in the middle attacks on our wallets. So that cartel will not want to see us create locally. And local produces quality goods will last longer then disposiible globalist 'crap' That was reduced in quality by economists that always choose cheap overdurabillity. 路 9 months ago
If the energy fluctuations that come with solar flares exeed the total energy consumption of the human population then science and politics should be honest to us, and not blast us with fear porn based on bullshit. So that we can geo-engenieer with a focus on the REAL issue.
IF that IS the ACTUAL issue. As that's also not fully clear to me. The solar weather is very interesting. And I wonder why it is not being covered more, as the flares the aurora and the heatwaves and the rain always follow in sequence. If the flare hits the landmass we get more heatwaves when it hits the ocean we get more rain. 路 9 months ago
edit: by dirt poor by: don't buy crap you don't*need*, reuse existing things untill unrepairable, treat everything with care 路 9 months ago
@maxheadroom I don't agree. But if thats the case shouldnt we try even harder to geoengineer ourselves back to "normal"? 路 9 months ago
@lykso I sort of agree but also nay... We tried ESG investment, Where companies tries to "do the right thing" and and earn more money. But kinda failed because customers doesn't rewared them enough. Which is a expected, why would ecoconcinous people want to buy more?
Also, if all 1st world citizens live like we are dirt poor. We'll have solved a majority of problems. No consumption means no production. Problem solved right? On the end, individual choice does make a difference, we just have to act together. And people can leave the rat race comparing material goods. But I don't see this happning. 路 9 months ago
It's whole systems driving climate change. Individual consumer choice is the wrong end at which to go about changing that sort of thing. Hence why BP invented the notion of a "carbon footprint." It's a distraction. Your consumption choices are not, at the end of the day, going to move the needle much. Political action is needed to shift the production side, the side that determines what options consumers have in the first place, onto a lower CO2e path. 路 9 months ago
Climate changes, and it is something that makes people worry. But the amount of energy it takes to make the changes seems to be a lot more then the energy footprint of humanity as a whole.
The only energysource in our solar system big enough to do this is our nearest star, the sun.
So I have the feeling that blaming ourselves is a bit short sighted.
I'm looking at sources like speaceweather, where they monitor the suns activity, sunspots, etc. and there seems to be a logical connection between this activity and the changing climate that makes more sense then the CO2 and nitrogen fear-porn.
Polution and wasting energy is bad, but is it the main cause? 路 9 months ago
I believe personal efforts are entirely moral and impractical, while the blame lies on large corporations. Still, we should do our best just so we can remain hopeful. I doubt we can even tell anyone to fix something, because getting an audience with the real culprits is so far beyond any individual. We common folk are beholden to very few. 路 9 months ago