Who is to blame for climate change?
I just saw the images of rain records being broken in the US. Also here in Holland, last month, the gates of waterheaven were opened as never before. A lasting ultraheavy shower released an unprecedented amount of water over the border in Germany. In Germany (by the way, right now I see an item on TV that scientists agree now that there is indeed a climate change...how clever they are) over 100 people were killed and the water in Holland caused hundreds of millions material damage. Germany even accused Holland for not opening gateways wide enough...
Who is to blame? We know already what. Is it even useful to ask if there is a blame? I mean, is climate change that bad? In Nature there have been a lot of climate changes. Only not in such a short time. Although the mass extinction event (the asteroid hit 60 million years ago in Yukatan caused a short term darkening and pretty high waves and Earthquakes. Although compared with Earth it was a tiny pebble moving in like a snail.
Who is to blame? We know already what. Is it even useful to ask if there is a blame? I mean, is climate change that bad? In Nature there have been a lot of climate changes. Only not in such a short time. Although the mass extinction event (the asteroid hit 60 million years ago in Yukatan caused a short term darkening and pretty high waves and Earthquakes. Although compared with Earth it was a tiny pebble moving in like a snail.
Comments (56)
Politicians, lobbies and rich ambitious entrepreneurs. These three do not care anything about of climate change or if you die of cancer due to pollution. They calculate how many lives die due to their business. After making a calculation, they see is completely worthy to still destroying the world because it is so profitable.
The fight against climate change or Paris agreement only could be possible if it is interesting for the richest authorities of the world.
The money and economic affairs come first that health issues.
:up:
We call it capitalism.
Everyone knowingly contributing to it. That means all Westerners since the introduction of the issue to the public in the 90s and most the rest of the world since the 2000s. Now I know most people would prefer to blame politicians and the elite, and indeed they are to blame, arguably more than the rest of the population, but we must remember that a lot of people in the middle-class use machines exarcebating the problem.
Quoting Prishon
No, it isn't because it does not help us solve the issue. We can continue the blame game forever
but that won't stop the climate from changing.
Quoting Prishon
Yes, it causes natural disasters.
Yes indeed. Or maybe UN-Natural disasters. A forrest fire (also occuring more and more) and floodings took place in all of history. But the way they do now is disturbing balance. Like that mechanized fishing of the worldseas.
Is it possible, do you think it's plausible, that capitalism is just a way freedom manifests itself and, conversely, could it be that socialism is authoritarianism in disguise?
Nice story! When the wife arrived I already thought "ohooh...".And yes. The goose got killed.
But thats the other comment. Im not sure I see to whom you address it. To the people not seeing the shit behind a growing greedy capitalism or the shit behind socialism.
Now is capitalism a way to express freedom? Yes, insofar material needs are addressed. If done in the right way (everybody equal access, no one working like slaves, good healthcare, education, and homing for everybody, etc.) I dont see a difference with socialism. Socialism (or communism) dont allow for being rich though (although millionairs are abundant in China, their socialism being that all resources should be people-owned?). The Internationale is a great song. Im not sure though if the red pill shows the reality behind socialism. There is also a red pill for capitalism. If a few people own half of the worth of the global money spent every year while that wife on the other side of the street can make ends meat (800 euro per month) then something is wrong. Not to mention the effect a growth model of economy (more more and more) has on Nature.
[quote=Wikipedia]It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.[/quote]
It also brings to mind the butcher's moral puzzle: If people didn't eat meat, butchers won't kill animals. If the butcher didn't kill animals, people won't eat meat. Who's to blame? The butcher? No, he's killing animals for us. Us, the nonvegetarians? No, we only eat meat because the butcher's made it available. The butcher can't stop killing animals because we demand meat; we can't stop eating meat because butchers make it available. Vicious cycle!
The difference with me and the arrow-struck hero being that I trie to remove the arrow. Knowing who shot the arrow and how the arrow is shot and how it has hit in the first place can be helpful.
Certainly the capitalist driven industrial revolution bears the major responsibility for global warming. No doubt, the coal barons, oil barons, lumber barons, steel barons, railroad barons, auto barons, air travel barons, plastic junk barons, etc. barons of Europe, North America, and now Asia didn't intend to cause global warming. But had they known of global warming in 1800 it is doubtful they would have behaved any differently. If it is man's nature to use resources, capitalists are manic blind resource exhausters, who never have a reason to moderate until something is gone, and not even then.
You didn't invent petroleum-based transportation, I didn't invent coal-based electrical generation, but we are all now complicit. My modest lifestyle wastes energy, generates more than my share of CO2, and so does yours, cost likely.
The trouble is, we are enmeshed in a complex system of energy production and use which we can not simply opt out of--especially not in large numbers. While other arrangements are possible, I can not imagine how we would bring alternate arrangements into existence without bringing on a catastrophe we want to avoid.
We all need to stop consuming most of what we consume. When we all do that, the economy will collapse and in short order there will be nothing to consume, and the credits on the screen will roll as the audience files out into eternity.
We missed the best opportunities to manageably rework our economy we were going to get 30 or 40 years ago (when global warming became clearly certain).
Thats the usual reply. Its only Natural to destroy the surface of the planet. Who cares? The Earth wont stop to travel around the Sun and life will always find a way. Of course. But not my kind of barren life. All is directed to the short term profit. But people are ratio-endowed. Thats Natural too. I bet you have a big car and lots of material posession! For which I dont blame you by the way...
Not if he had tried to remove the arrow (climate change).
Gov't doesn't educate population, population elects gov't who continues not to educate population. This gov't then allows corporations to pollute.
Educated worldwide populations would vote for policies creating global regulation and governance structures which could curb the actions of corporations.
My rather simple analysis. It doesn't tackle the problem of non democratic systems.
In our present form, we had been on earth for what... 400,000 years, give or take 15 minutes, without doing much damage. As stone-age hunter-gatherers our presence was no more significant than other mammals. Still, we were exceptional enough to produce technology (stone tools, cooked food, spears, and the like) which enabled us to become a top predator.
At some fairly recent period in time--less than 20,000 ago--we changed. We developed the tools and skills to exploit resources more profoundly. We began to settle, to dig, and build in more significant ways. By 12,000 years ago, we started to cultivate and settle, to build small villages, and later larger, higher stone walls. We found nuggets of copper and began shaping them into ornaments and tools. Then we started digging deeper. We built with wood and stone.
We were not very many, and the earth was very big. Our footprint was slight, but we were accumulating new abilities. By 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 years ago--take your pick--we were set to take on the world.
Still, the major damage didn't begin until we harnessed metal machines to coal and oil--just yesterday in our history. Nothing in our experience as a species predicted how consequential steel, coal and oil would be.
Quoting Prishon
We could blame capitalism. I'm happy to do that, but there is another cause: Humans are just not very good at wide-ranging, long-term consequence-calculating. And if we can do the calculation, we can't usually motivate immediate behavior change for distant benefit--maybe a century or more in the future.
So yes, we evolved to become a huge nuisance for the planet, but we can not be other than what we are. Yes, we are sort-of rational, but not rational enough to change our short-term, let alone our long-term behavior. Is that OK? No, but that's where we are.
Is there an applicable solution? That's the $64,000,000,000,000,000 question,
Quoting Prishon
Gees, where did that come from?
Actually, I have never owned a car. As for lots of material possessions, it's mostly books and ordinary household stuff. It's more than I need or want, but in 75 years, one accumulates stuff which is much more a burden than an asset.
It was not my intention to insult you! I merely stated that to provoke... And I didnt know you are 75 already. So sorry about that!
I dont ful-heartedly agree though. Something is nagging but Im not sure what. Do you know how many people lived on Earth back then? 10 000 years ago or so?
Great answer by the way!
There were not many humans "back then", depending on which "back then" you are thinking of. Generally speaking, the Paleolithic populations of humans were very small.
Estimates are very rough. But my understanding is that for most of the Paleolithic Period total human populations were very small. During the "population bottleneck" around 70,000 years ago, the total population of humans was reduced to maybe 10,000 to 30,000. Something happened (the Tuba Volcano cold snap, maybe) that killed off a lot of people. We are all descendants of the people surviving that event.
After the climate recovered, total human populations would still have remained small -- under a million at any one time. Why not more people, faster population growth? Hunter-gatherers were not able to reproduce abundantly. Their lifestyle did not allow for rapid reproduction; breast-feeding, for instance, slows down reproduction and at this time children were probably breast fed for several years. They were very mobile. Everyone expended a lot of energy providing food, warmth, and shelter.
One estimate is that during warm Paleolithic intervals between ice ages, the population of inhabitatal Europe might have been only 1 person per square mile--a pretty thin population.
Sometime after 10,000 years ago (like... 8,000 years ago) population started to grow more rapidly. Try this article.
If only they had invented condoms too back then. I used to think that people saying the Earth is over populated were totally wrong. Im not so sure now!
Yes, it is that bad and yes, there is something to blame: the fossil fuel industry and, more generally, short-term concern for profits encouraged by capitalism.
Quoting Bitter Crank
:clap:
As one wag said, "We're the only complex, non-servo computing mechanism created by totally unskilled labor."
Anyway, all who have, or have had choice, are to blame. Some more than others. Blame is useless unless it is accompanied by punishment beyond that experienced by all who otherwise suffer consequences resulting from the blameworthy act. If the punishment is there, sufficient to dissuade the actor and would-be actors, then it's all good. Otherwise, we are stuck with "I told you so's" or getting on with making the best of the remainder of the day.
I agree with Xtrix, that the fossil fuel industry is largely to blame. But part of that industry are the shareholders who hide behind the big government skirts of the corporate veil. A lot of these folks have stock lost in the morass of 401ks, mutual funds, IRA's, etc. Myself, included. It's part of the open conspiracy to fuck the planet, largely under the lie of "for the children."
And yes, some of those kids will look back on us from their dystopian hot house and say "They didn't know any better back then."
Everyone. There are more humans on Earth than we have the ability to sustain without releasing GHGs that in turn warm the planet.
Some have a larger impact than others. The US, Canada, and Australia have the highest emissions per person. Part of this is climate. North America is a lot less temperate than Europe. Massachusetts towns have lower average winter lows than Moscow or Helsinki, with the Mid-West being significantly colder, while large part of the population lives in deserts that are far hotter. More energy is required for heating and air conditioning. Much lower population density as well as intentional policy decisions to support cars over public transport also feed into it. Some poorer countries have surprisingly large carbon outlays though, Iran is on par with Europe. Poorer countries tend to use less.
That will likely change over time though. Technology offers a lot of ways for wealthy countries to reduce net emissions, so poorer countries may eventually have higher net emissions per person, which isn't great since they will also continue to experience rapid population growth.
Probably the place to focus policy wise is on optional choices people make that increase emissions a lot. Living in large dwellings, a majority of Americans driving trucks or SUVs, eating meat every meal. It's particularly bad in the US. Protein, eating meat every meal, is marketed as a way to lose weight, instead of, you know... eating less. People think passenger cars will explode if they touch a gravel road. In fact, every car I've owned I've taken up dirt roads for camping, even used to bring a crappy Ford station wagon up high clearance roads with the help of a wood board. Meanwhile people with Jeeps end up crashing them in 5 inches of snow in the South. We probably add at least another large country's worth of emissions because people refuse to learn to drive. Although really it's more of a fashion statement. Somewhere in the last 15 years using a pick up as the family vehicle became stylish.
Do you think Earth is over-populated? I used to think no. But then I learned way back there were only max one million people on Earth. And only a few white tigers are left now. And even less pandas.
I'm not sure all people can't be sustained without emitting GHS's.
Sure. But even if per capita stats show who use energy the most, for things like climate change the real issue are the aggregate emissions:
It's telling that altogether France, Germany, UK and Japan in the aggregate emit just half of what the US does, even if the combined population of these countries is bigger than the population of the US. There's the real effect of selected energy policy. And naturally China is the biggest emitter (28%), but India just 7% even if the populations start to be on par (there are only 59 million fewer Indians than Chinese).
So the real issue is for India not to pick the way of Coal plants, but for example renewable energy and nuclear.
What's done differently in the US? Are the most billionaires made in the US?
Let's start with the sources where countries get their electricity. Here's the pie chart for the US in 2019:
Then let's compare this to France:
Do you spot any difference? Hint: using Nuclear energy doesn't produce emissions creating climate change. Here you can see the effects of energy policy. That coal power plants produce nearly a third of the electricity in the US and only 2% of the electricity in France matters.
And this is just electricity production...
What many fossile plants in the US? I thought it was nuclear energy that banged the main drum! Would be nice if fusion worked. Although, creating the Sun on Earth...
Nuclear lobby is quite miniscule and not so strong. Besides, Coal mining has earlier been important employer for example in the Appalachian range, so it's no wonder that a populist politician declared himself of supporter of Coal. Got the votes from from the rust belt!
I know that politician! Even here his false Trumpet tones can be heard! Every time the stories from your country amaze me (assuming it's your country). The basic rules are so pretty though. As are the words under the statue of liberty. About the poor...
I carefully checked the science behind the so called 'CO2 emissions cause climate change theory' and found it to be basically baseless. You can blame the UFO or Yetis for that with equal proof. :)
"So called" emissions? They're pretty real. How did you carefully check that?
I started from the point of view of philosophy of science, i.e. what is science?
In brief, we have exact science, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. which is based on knowing all relevant factors and an ability to carry out a repeatable experiment.
Next we have non-exact science, such as economics or psychology, where we don't know all the relevant factors, nor can we carry out experiments. We can only rely on observations, build models and attempt to draw conclusions. It is much less accurate and can have multiple 'schools of thought' on the same subject, like Freudian vs Jungian, Austrian economics vs Keynesian, etc.
Finally we have pseudo-science, such as homeopathy, cryptozoology, astrology, etc. they take some proposition as a priory true and start building all their knowledge base on that.
For example, "like cures like" or "position of the plants at the time of ones birth will affect his life", etc.
I would ague that "climate science" in the form currently promoted by IPCC falls into the pseudo-science category, as it takes the idea of "industries emit CO2, which causes global warming, which will cause horrible natural disasters, which should be avoided at all costs" as a dogma.
In reality, it all falls apart if you ask
what is the optimal greenhouse effect for our planet?
what is the optimal CO2 level?
what is the optimal temperature and how do you measure it?
how do you tell apart natural climate variations vs those, causes by human activity?
is there a provable causal link between CO2 and temperature?
what are the pros and cons if we continue emitting CO2?
what are the pros and cons if we cut down the emissions?
knowing that human like to ascribe agency to natural disasters, how to we know if a certain disaster is worsened by "climate change" or, maybe, lightened?
I think you would agree that without a scientific answer to the above questions this discipline can not be taken seriously.
As if the IPCC is the only legitimate organization "promoting" climate change... :scream:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climate_change_organizations
they all are based on the same idea, aren't they? ;) such as there might be lots of 'schools' of astrology.
Who cooked up the idea?
I didn't go too deep into the history of this matter, but probably the UN did.
Get back to me when you find out...
All these astrology schools make different predictions. Which one is the right one? Are these predictions self-fulfilling? Who knows? Im no astrologist. In the case of climate I trust science models. The subject matter is best approached by science of the atmosphere (music of the atmosphers...). Not by astrology. Although very complex, predictions can be made and they are already coming through (though I already in my younger days thought bad things were inevitable, without knowing the exact science). Are you a climatologist in disguise?
Can they predict anything even a month in advance? If not, why should we trust their prediction decades ahead? Especially if they were wrong so many times? ( entire nations under water by 2020 )
I am not a climatologist, nor am I an astrologist or a homeopath. ;)
Yes. Absolutely. In personal affairs astrologists perform better than scientists though.
Those simply aren't the same things.
I can make the prediction that in 200 years everybody participating in this Forum now will be dead. I think you can agree that my prediction is extremely likely to be true. But I cannot predict who is the person now participating in this Forum who will die next. The most likeliest are those who are old or who have a very bad health condition. Yet the sample size is so low that statistics don't help us much.
:victory:
Such prediction is based on simple observation that people live way less than 200 years. What does it have to do with climate?
What are you asking here? What does the fact that climate changes in the course of geological time have to do with our reaction to the problem in the present? As if you were to ask: "People have always suffered from malnutrition, disease, and war; so are malnutrition, disease, and war really all that bad, and things to be avoided?"
Do you think it's a good idea to regulate economic activity on Earth so as to promote a stable global ecology? Or do you think it's a better idea to neglect to do so, even though we can, and even though that neglect is sure to result in death and destruction, economic and ecological instability on a massive scale -- to the detriment of millions or billions of human beings?
Quoting Prishon
Everyone who is in position to take action to remedy the problem, and neglects to do so, is to blame. Everyone who takes action to obstruct remediation, or to make the problem worse, is to blame.
The people who are most to blame are those with the most capacity to promote a remedy but who neglect to do so, along with the people who obstruct the most, and the people who intensify the problem the most.
Like this bullshit artist. Here's the story about the interview from Unearthed:
What kind of monster thinks that "looking out for our investments" can possibly be a justification for promoting policies likely to produce catastrophic results for so many human beings?