Climate Denial
Particularly on the philosophy forum, I think climate denial should at this point be either laughed at (as one would flat earthers) or ignored.
Perhaps I’m wrong— but I want to at least suggest it as worthwhile, and offer a framework for evaluating exactly who we’re dealing with— based on the following article, which I’ll quote at length:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/30/climate-denier-shill-global-debate
Anyway— food for thought.
Perhaps I’m wrong— but I want to at least suggest it as worthwhile, and offer a framework for evaluating exactly who we’re dealing with— based on the following article, which I’ll quote at length:
The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.
However infuriating they are, arguing with them or debunking their theories is likely only to generate publicity or money for them. It also helps to generate a fake air of controversy over climate action that provides cover for the vested interests seeking to delay the end of the fossil fuel age.
But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.
The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.
A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.
The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.
The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/30/climate-denier-shill-global-debate
Anyway— food for thought.
Comments (124)
They also read Ayn Rand.
What Is the Free Market Solution to Climate Change? YouTube
Quoting tim wood
It's very difficult for me to refrain from giving oxygen to these people. But it may be the best strategy in the end. If one is to "cancel culture", provide consequences, or ostracize, then one has to stick to it. I don't know if I have what it takes, but I shall try. I'm glad "laughed at" was laid out as an option. It might be a half-way step for me. :smile:
There is this elderly woman I have known for a long time who refuses to get vaccinated for Covid-19. She is not an anti-vaxxer. Actually, she's proactive about her health, and offers usually sound advice to others. So, why does this woman who gets an annual flu shot and got the new Shingrex vaccine for shingles not getting the Covid-19 shot?
She's very conservative; she's a Democrat-hating right-winger. She bought the original Trump spin on Covid 19, and has not been able to take it seriously because of her ideological investment. Along with her politics are very conservative Baptist beliefs about authority, the proper role of women (obedient wife, mother) and so on.
She doesn't express articulate arguments when challenged -- she gets angry. She feels like people who disagree with her are attacking her.
Of course, she had help from the types of charlatans listed. She has recently started reading the Epoch Times, which Wikipedia describes as "The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement"
That's true for almost every conservative.
People can be both endearing, and also suffer from poor judgement, sadly.
Part of the issue is that understanding both COVID-19 and climate change requires the ability to grasp abstract concepts and scientific analysis. A lot of people are superficially educated and don't have a grasp of the facts nor of critical thinking, and are constantly exposed to conflicting information under the protection of free speech. Not that free speech is a bad thing, but with democratic freedom comes responsibility, and responsibility means 'capable of responding'. Many people are not capable of responding because they can't arrive at the right judgement. Sometimes I think there is too much latitude given. Everyone, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. But facts are routinely denigrated in modern discourse. As a result many people are deeply confused. And they also have a strong sense of personal entitlement and the feeling that whatever doesn't suit them is an attack on their ego.
If you were in China, you would be told how to respond. You wouldn't be given any choice, not that this is a good thing either.
I think the UK's Johnson and the US President are at last showing definite resolve with respect to climate change at last, after decades of denial and faffing about. That, and responsible reporting, is about all that can be hoped for.
It's also a bit naive to believe that only one side of the debate is susceptible to charlatanry or fallacy.
Yeah, but anthropogenic climate change denial is a thing.
Status quo über alles – Cui bono? Follow the money, Fool.
:up:
:up:
Right! I was actually thinking of something else. Take the USA for example - it considers itself the champion of democracy, not in the Americas, but globally - The US envisions a world in which every inch of land fits the description, "the land of the free." Commendable and deeply inspiring. Let's ignore the fact that it abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban for the moment.
This same kind of global perspective, ecologically speaking, is oddly missing from the US agenda.
Why?
Status quo über alles – Cui bono? Follow the money.
Are you serious? Come on. :roll:
Quoting Wheatley
Indeed.
Quoting tim wood
I myself don’t go this far, but it really does appear this way at times.
Quoting James Riley
For me too— but it’s never productive, because the arguments are so irrational and so damaging that it’s hard to keep my temper, and then I’m not communicating well enough to have an effect anyway.
My 80-year old uncle is the same way. It’s just very sad. I do notice evangelical Christianity is a good predictor of vaccine refusal too.
Quoting TheMadFool
There are some obvious reasons— mostly money. The fossil fuel industry is massive, and they lobby, bribe, and propagandize very well.
Here here. :100:
Absolutely.
But the task of converting a world economy to a low-greenhouse gas regime is massive to the nth degree, even if the fossil fuel industry went out of business. We don't want to crash the world economy in the process. On the other hand, the world economy is a major part of the problem, especially the big part that is highly developed.
None-the-less, were we capable of doing it, we should bite the bullet and get on with the transition--whatever the difficulties.
Are we capable of it converting the world economy? All the public statements notwithstanding, the efforts have been phlegmatic, even as the dangers of global warming has become more apparent.
Take transportation as a piece of the problem. There are roughly 1 billion fossil-fueled cars on the world's roads. The stupid solution is to build another billion cars running on electricity, and continue to maintain and build roads. People like private autos, sure. But there is also the tremendously large industry involved in autos, quite apart from fossil fuels.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
A global economic collapse followed eventually by WW3 might create a global government, assuming the fallout isn't too extreme.
:sad:
Are you saying the earth and all living organisms on it, that includes us, are at the mercy of a few people with vested interests in oil? That's uplifting!
See my reply to Xtrix below.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, money seems to be the prime suspect. It's the obvious choice from any list of reasons why there are climate deniers. My question then is, does the buck have to stop there? I'm calling for a deeper analysis of money. Greed seems to stick out like a sore thumb but then that's how mother nature - evolution - made us over millions of years with good results (we're what evolutionary biologists might call a successful species). Doesn't the whole issue look like mother nature's plan backfired? Climate change then is not man-made, life/mother nature is to blame. Why make us greedy?
All of which was spelled out in Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. Since then most OECD economies have frittered away years bickering about it and asking stupid questions about ‘how much it will cost’, when the cost of not addressing it is certain doom.
Did not Mother Nature endow us with care and concern for others as well? Why is greed given primacy? Especially when you see generosity all around. So why make us generous and loving?
It’s not Mother Nature, and it’s not human nature. It’s not genes. It’s about a society that elevates some aspects of human behavior and suppresses others. The dominant system today is called capitalism.
Yes, but arguably our proclivities aren't equally matched - greed/selfishness trumps genorosity/altruism any day.
Quoting Xtrix
I humbly beg to differ. If we weren't as avaricious as we are, money wouldn't be our priority and then things might've been different.
Coming back to what I said earlier, I still feel that Mother Nature's to blame for her own predicament. Life is, all said and done, selfish - evolution made us that way and now we're supposed to feel guilty about how we (mis)managed the situation. C'mon!
By the way, are we sure that climate change isn't what Mother Nature actually had in mind when she, over billions of years, perfected human grabbiness?
It seems the majority just won't vote for any government that would seek to diminish comfort, convenience and prosperity; it's inertia, not greed, that is the major problem, as I see it. And as @Bitter Crank mentioned the transition from a fossil fuel based economy to an economy based on sustainable energy is an enormous, seemingly almost insurmountable problem, just as are reduction of the human population, making the transition to an economics of de-growth, and giving up the multiple evils of industrial farming practices which are destroying soils everywhere and fish-farming and general over-fishing which is degrading the oceans.
Industrial society could not have developed without sufficient energy sources, and most of it came from coal, which captures energy from the sun. Coal beds took hundreds of millions of years to form, and the industrial revolution has been powered by that captured energy. Global warming is a side-effect, an unintended consequence.
[quote=John Michael Greer - Collapse Now, and Avoid the Rush; https://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-06-06/collapse-now-and-avoid-rush/] industrial society was only possible because our species briefly had access to an immense supply of cheap, highly concentrated fuel with a very high net energy—that is, the amount of energy needed to extract the fuel was only a very small fraction of the energy the fuel itself provided. Starting in the 18th century, fossil fuels—first coal, then coal and petroleum, then coal, petroleum and natural gas—gave us that energy source. All three of these fossil fuels represent millions of years of stored sunlight, captured by the everyday miracle of photosynthesis and concentrated within the earth by geological processes that took place long before our species evolved. They are nonrenewable over any time scale that matters to human beings, and we are using them up at astonishing rates.
...No other energy source available to our species combines the high net energy, high concentration, and great abundance that a replacement for fossil fuel would need. Those energy sources that are abundant (for example, solar energy) are diffuse and yield little net energy, while those that are highly concentrated (for example, fissionable uranium) are not abundant, and also have serious problems with net energy. Abundant fossil fuels currently provide an “energy subsidy” to alternative energy sources that make them look more efficient than they are—there would be far fewer wind turbines, for example, if they had to be manufactured, installed, and maintained using wind energy. Furthermore, our entire energy infrastructure is geared to use fossil fuels and would have to be replaced, at a cost of countless trillions of dollars, in order to replace fossil fuels with something else.
Third, these problems leave only one viable alternative, which is to decrease our energy use, per capita and absolutely, to get our energy needs down to levels that could be maintained over the long term on renewable sources.[/quote]
Published in 2012, but still, I fear, largely true.
:clap: I often feel guilty about being a supermarket shopper but the alternative seems daunting (plucking and cleaning a chicken for instance :yikes: )
You mean to say inertia as in a resistance to change like in physics how it's difficult to start/stop motion. You might have a point there; this same inertia has been the stumbling block for positive change throughout the ages - what could've been achieved in, say, a decade took over a coupla centuries, in the process delaying the transition from mere civilizations to good civilizations.
Not sure what you mean by "good civilizations" as opposed to "mere civilizations". If you have in mind our present state of "uber-civilization", this was achieved as quickly as it has been due to, as @Wayfarer mentioned, the "boon' of fossil fuels. I don't think inertia has been all that much of a problem when, as circumstances have allowed, it comes to transitioning to greater prosperity, comfort and convenience; I'm not convinced that many of us resist that kind of change. It's change in the other direction that causes us to dig our heels in, I would say.
But in their case it's more a "Loyal and noble crusader, fighting for the true ideology" rather than a dogma-busting Galileo.
Since I moved onto 15 acres I have considered farming animals, but I don't really have the stomach for it. The best I can do is keep a few chooks for eggs. I had a friend up here who I have known for about twenty years who's been up here for about 16 years and has very militant attitudes about people who get their meat prepackaged in supermarkets. His attitude is that it is disrespectful to animals to have someone else kill them for you under possibly brutal conditions. Also the conditions under which they have been raised are probably not great either.
He keeps rabbits, pigs, chickens, ducks, sheep and geese and the ones he eats he slaughters and butchers himself. I've watched him do it, and I could probably get used to it, but I actually have no desire to do it, and even an aversion to doing it. If meat wasn't available already butchered I think I'd probably become a vegetarian, but you never know I guess. I think the way he keeps the rabbits, for example, is appalling, although his other animals have it pretty good it seems.
By good civilization, I mean one that's in keeping with how nature works - harmoniously with other species and the environment itself - and so, is in some kind of sustainable equilibrium with everything else. Mere civilization is the one we have at present - disequilibrium defines it.
If you mean climate scientists, the more pertinent question would be as to when they have been wrong. Other than that I don't know who you would be referring to as "climate alarmists" (which of course most of the scientists are not).
Positive change. Climate change has been a hot topic since 1900's (Svante Arrhenius) and it's now the 2000's - it's taking a hell of a long time for the danger to sink in.
There is also the inertia (or momentum if you prefer) of the gigantic fossil-fueled infrastructures that have made us so prosperous. All of that, despite unrealistic calls by some of the green enthusiasts for immediate abandonment of fossil fuels, cannot be replaced overnight, even if only for technical reasons (and of course there are economic and political reasons as well).
They’re also known as ‘warmists’. You know, people who run around scaring the populace with nonsense about climate change.
Can you go a bit deeper into this inertia concept? Does it have anything to do with our nature? What could explain it? People seem to take lots and lots of convincing before they decide to not accept but just to merely consider a point of view. I've experienced this myself - it takes a huge amount of effort just to get heard, forget about changing people's minds.
:lol: You did a volte face faster than you can say Jack Robinson. What made you change your mind?
:lol:
All of which was spelled out in Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. Since then most OECD economies have frittered away years bickering about it and asking stupid questions about ‘how much it will cost’, when the cost of not addressing it is certain doom.
What I was referring to was not rational assent. Many people accept the reality of anthropogenically induced, or at least enhanced, climate change. What to do about it, including accepting a fairly drastic reduction in one's prosperity, comfort and convenience is the real stumbling block. The fact is that really significant change needs to be mandated by governments, but again the problem is getting any government that proposed such radical changes voted in, and then voted in again and again for a sufficient series of terms to effect the needed changes.
That's the way people seem to be; does it matter whether it has "anything to do with our nature"? The important question would be whether we can find a way to work around this inertia before it's too late. Your question reminds me of the Buddhist story about the person who has been shot with a poison arrow wanting to know what kind of poison it was, what kind of wood was the bow and arrow made from, who made the bow and arrow and so on, before consenting to treatment.
So, the choices are either a benevolent dictator OR ecological collapse? Mother Nature has us cornered, has us by the balls. :grin: Magnifique!
Quoting Janus
Of course it matters. Didn't you hear? Mother Nature knows best! We better keep on pumping more CO2, even CFCs, billions and billions of methane, into the atmosphere. That's what she wants us to do for God's sake!
It reminds me of a year or so old thread :point: In the book of Joshua, why does God have the Israelites march around the walls of Jericho for 6 days?
My contribution for what it's worth to the thread was:
Quoting TheMadFool
Connect the dots - Dear ol' Mother Nature is comparatively orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. I think this isn't the time to be asking questions about whether what we're doing is right or wrong. We should, as Nike puts it, JUST DO IT! Maybe there's light at the end of this rather dark, very dark, tunnel.
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
Do the majority of scientists agree that climate change is the "the issue of our time"? I would be interested in seeing a study. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.
I hear about climate change now and again. I'm surprised I don't hear about it all the time in the news. Who is to blame that this issue is not given more attention?
If the super rich and smart people like Bill Gates thought climate change was absolutely the issue, couldn't they do something about it? At least make world leaders learn, or educate the public. Quick google search says "Bill Gates pledges $1.5 billion for climate change projects if Congress passes infrastructure bill" 1.5 billion. That's not much. Why has Bill Gates been more concerned about viruses?
I'd also like to hear an argument why this is "the issue of our time."
Why is it a bigger issue than:
Poverty. (and extreme inequality of wealth distribution)
Religious conflict & war
Political polarization
Government unaccountability
Food and water. (Currently, 1 in 9 people lack access to clean water across the world, a quick search revealed)
I don't know if you look at me as some kind of Troll or something. But perhaps you would like to respond for those who are following your thread.
I don't think its necessarily easy, especially for us laymen to determine what is the most important issue of our time.
And even among experts... people are usually experts in specific fields. I'm not sure there is anyone qualified to speak on a global scale about what is the most important issue for everyone.
Food for thought.
I think Bill Gates is chump change compared to the largest, richest most powerful industry the world has ever known: Petroleum Hydrocarbons (oil). He's like a gnat on bulls ass. But I have often wanted to sit down and ask him and his wife (X?) how philanthropy doesn't work at cross-purposes: Doesn't education and helping people result in an increase of their foot print on the planet? One American costs more than a thousand starving people in X country. If will pull them up and cause a reduction in their reproduction/population, isn't that offset by their increasing foot print? Anyway, I digress.
As to other "pressing issues", one might argue that worrying about those other issues is spending a dollar chasing a dime. When your house is burning down, you might want to work on that first. Of what avail is equal wealth distribution, peace, solidarity, accountability, food and water, if you don't have a place to enjoy all that in? They aren't much good in a post-apocalyptical hell-scape.
I feel out of my element. Your post is well written, but I will offer a chain of thought. My predilection is toward systems thinking.
If Climate Change is the big issue, and the bull of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons industry is the final boss monster causing it. Then that means the Petoleum Hydrcarbons Industry's lack of accountability is a fundamental issue.
Why isn't it held accountable? Maybe because governments aren't being held accountable? So government lack of accountability is a fundamental issue of our time.
Why isn't government being held accountable? Could it be because "we the people" don't stand up to them? Why don't we stand up to them? Could be because most of the world is preoccupied with basic survival? Then that is also a fundamental issue.
And the less poor are divided, distracted, and unclear about the issue at foot, no? So lack of solidarity if a fundamental issue.
Solidarity leads to power. Power leads to ability to hold people accountable. Accountability leads to Petroleum Hydrocarbons Industry ceasing to cause Climate Change.
This is probably super ultra overly simple.... but that is partly my point. We can talk about simple things, but how to actually do anything. It seems very complex, for us microbes on a gnats ass, impossible?
The PHI is accountable to no one. We might think that government could/should hold the PHI accountable, but government is a fully owned and operated subsidiary of the PHI. You are correct that we don't stand up to government because we are preoccupied with basic survival, divided, distracted and lack solidarity. However, the PHI funds that preoccupation, division, distraction and lack of solidarity.
There are other PHI subordinates (other unrelated industries and interests) that contribute to and benefit from the PHI efforts. So it's not all on the PHI, but they are the el jefe. It's probably more accurate to just sum it up as the plutocracy.
One wag opined that in the future (if not now) we will be resigned to aligning ourselves with the Plutocracy or Cartels, both of which rely upon each other to foment the preoccupation, division, distraction and lack of solidarity by using each other as a foil, while maintaining government as a punching bag for the people.
Part of the problem is that taking responsibility can work at cross-purposes to your goal. If I save a gallon of gas, I increase the supply, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, and allows others to roll coal while I walk. It's like the guy who wants to take out Saddam Husain taking his deer rifle, boarding a plane to Bagdad and trying to hunt him down on his own. Is he a hypocrite for not doing so? No. It's just smart to have solidarity on some issues. It takes all of us to build an interstate highway system, prosecute a war, save the climate, etc.
So it's no wonder people want to be lead. We just have leaders that are owned by the Plutocracy. How to break that log jam? I don't know. With all the bread and circuses it's hard to do.
The plutocracy is very small compared to the majority, yet they rule. Their power isn't based on money, but deception of the masses. They convinced the majority to sell their soul's to paper. To work in servitude in quiet desperation to corporations. The same corporations that rule the government which they convince us is there to "protect our freedom"(rights).
Imagine it.... convincing people that they can be Ruled and Free at the same time, and that in fact their Freedom depends on there being Rulers to enforce the freedom. Forced freedom! But we get to choose who will Rule us! We are too stupid and irresponsible o rule ourselves, but we are smart and responsible enough to know who could be a good ruler for us!
Anyway, its becoming kind of a rant at this point.
:cheer: Flippancy is just one step shy of the nest step, which is "looking at the bright side." It's part of the default playbook. I saw it in logging, mining, grazing, water . . . whatever would let the process continue and allow people to sleep at night. It's like collateral damage. Just another price to be paid. Nothing to see here, move along folks.
:100: Yep, I've witnessed the very same human phenomenon in building and landscaping.
Quoting James Riley
"Divide and conquer". Solidarity of the people seems to be a distant fast-vanishing dream.
Yes. If they detect a little stirring that could manifest into a credible threat, they just crack open the spigot a little bit, give us a drink, toss us a bone and foment a division and we are as divided as ever.
I would suspect it’s up there, yes. Perhaps nuclear weapons as well. I think among climate scientists it’s especially likely, given what they know.
Quoting Yohan
I think media is improving in its coverage because it’s getting worse, but there’s much room for improvement. They’re not nearly covering it enough.
I think there’s several reasons. Mostly about money, as usual. It’s depressing, so it doesn’t sell.
Quoting Yohan
Some billionaires are deniers, or want to delay anything being done because their wealth depends on it. In Gates’ case— he considers this the most important issue, in fact. He wrote an entire book about it a few months ago.
Quoting Yohan
Climate change is an existential threat. Like nuclear weapons. That should make it pretty high on our priority list.
Depletion of aquifers, depletion of fisheries and plastic pollution of oceans and destruction of soils by "Big Agra" are also existential threats. Destruction of forest habitat is also, on its own apart from its tie-in to global warming, an existential threat. Basically the only solution to the problem would seem to be a drastic reduction of human population, but that is an unacceptable aim, and probably very few people would want it to happen naturally (caused by a pandemic, catastrophic collapse of aquifers or fisheries) or by inadvertent human action (nuclear war).
Humanity is between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes.
You have outlined the conundrum very well. This is exactly how I see the situation. If we stopped Big Agra and food aid to the countries that need it everything would collapse and countless millions would starve. That might solve the problem, but our economies would collapse and we would be in a post-apocalyptic world. And here we are trying to save everyone from Covid, which might only exacerbate the overall problem, but it is the right thing to do nonetheless, or so it seems to me.
There's a bacteria that eats plastic. Problem solved!
a. are they salt-water bacteria?
b. can they start on solid plastic items (bottles, plastic parts, etc)?
c. how long does it take the bacteria to eat 1 kilogram of plastic?
d. any plastic? There are dozen of varieties.
e. what are the breakdown products?
The plastic has apparently permeated the bodies of all the sea creatures in the form of micro plastic. Those who eat fish may be full of it too. Big job for the bacteria!
:up: Pertinent questions!
The bacteria will get to it eventually. I don't think it needs to be dumped anywhere.
They were first discovered in Japan at a plastic recycling plant. Yes, they eat bottles.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why? Are we in a hurry?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm guessing now that one type has evolved, more will follow. Bacteria mutate pretty frequently.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Plutonium! No, I don't know. Water and carbon dioxide probably.
Depends on if we care for our children. I think there was a recent article about how this is all fucking with their brains. I'd look it up, but I'm too lazy.
It may have fucked with your brain.
:up:
Yeah, I mean here I am, arguing with a fucking moron named "frank" so it could very well be. Here's an article about the plastics found in the franks in franks diapers. The verdict is still out on harm, but I think you are a case study proving damage: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/23/22689941/babies-infants-poop-microplastics
No, I think this is exactly the right line of questioning.
To clarify: when I say climate change should be considered the issue of our time, I don’t mean in a vacuum. Along with it comes everything you mention. It’s daunting and discouraging to most people because it feels so immense. That’s part of the problem.
But really what it comes down to is the things you mentioned: education, organization, solidarity, conversation, holding those in power accountable (and making sure those who ARE in power don’t deny global warming),
But the issue of climate change, like other issues, should still be much higher on our priorities. We cannot act on it unless we acknowledge and prioritize it— however we then go on to contribute to solving it. We should be educating more people, organizing with others, making climate change an essential voting issue, and demanding appropriate funding to transition to renewables and help fortify the country from effects that are already locked in. All this is achievable, if people pay attention and lose their hopelessness.
Potentially. Some of this is overlapping with global warming as well. Our destruction of the environment and exhausting of resources is leading to massive destruction on several fronts. No doubt.
I don’t see plastics in the ocean as existential, as awful as it is — but I’m open to hearing that argument.
Quoting Janus
I don’t think so. It’s not the vast majority destroying the environment, it’s a handful of countries and a handful of people within those countries.
Better decisions can and should be made. There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population.
Frank would fit in much better on Twitter: short, usually irrelevant, and generally stupid posts. Imagine him, NOS, and the handful of clowns that come back under different names having their own group?
It’s like kids trying to join in when adults are talking. Probably shouldn’t pay much attention.
I would agree in so far as "capitalism" is defined as the abomination we currently live under (which includes socialization of costs while privatizing profits). But true capitalism would require all of those who currently do the damage to first pay each individual, in an arm's length transaction, fair market value for the right to damage their interests. Some, like me, would not sell and therefor the damage could not be done. No corporate veil, or big government skirts for them to hide behind with their limited liability and other purchased legislation. That would be true capitalism and not the hedonistic waste that the self-identified "capitalists" currently shove onto us.
Quoting Xtrix
I agree. He's taking up perfectly good space that could better be used by nothing.
So neoliberal capitalism. Yes. But I think probably capitalism more broadly as well— that is, state capitalism.
So far as I know laissez-faire capitalism has never existed. If that’s what’s meant by “real” capitalism, I consider it a pipe dream and a cover for giving away more and more to the business sector.
A move towards “regimented capitalism” the US had in the 50s and 60s during our biggest growth period would be a welcomed development.
I'm not sure what it's called, but I'd just like to see Liz Warren call them out and say "You want capitalism? You couldn't handle capitalism!" The corporation itself is anti-capitalism and yet the self-identified "capitalists" are all about hiding behind it. It's a creature of the state (i.e. Big Government) which they claim to hate, all while hiding behind it. If they were forced to pay their way in a true risk taking fashion, they'd take their capital and crawl back under the fridge where they belong. Anyway, yes, kill it if it can't abide it's own terms. If there is no enlightenment in enlightened self-interest then you just have greed and that is not what Adam Smith of any true capitalist was about. Greed is what we have now.
Adam Smith is the place to start. He warned a lot against most of what we consider capitalism today.
It’s institutionalized greed, yes. It’s a system — a game — with rules and laws that encourage greed. It rests on the ideas of, at bottom, materialism and human nature as basically pathological. It’s a merchant’s philosophy. It’s sick and it has dominated our thinking for over 200 years. Time for it to go.
Otherwise known as the profit motive.
So you say— but I see as much evidence to the contrary. Just look at families— your own even— is it true that “greed/selfishness” trumps care for them? Or concern for others’ needs? Or loyalty?
I see acts of kindness and generosity all over. Some want to argue this is selfishness in the end— fine. Then in that case selfishness isn’t harmful, so who cares.
Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake— one that’s at the core of our rotten philosophy, politics, and economy. We believe it, so we act accordingly. At bottom it’s really nihilism in disguise. With the cover of “sophisticated” philosophy and science.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is the influence of Rand and Dawkins and the like. But I consider it complete nonsense.
Of course greed, selfishness, excess, pleasure-seeking, hedonism, and so on, are part of human behavior. But so are all the rest. To simply define human beings as selfish animals who care about nothing else except their own material gain and perhaps reproduction is simply missing some very big parts of the story.
Which is in fact what propagandists have cultivated over the years. If you convince everyone that life is a series of accumulations of material goods, that individuals are all that exist, that selfishness is axiomatic, that there’s nothing that can be done because “that’s life,” then you get what we see today: depression, addictions, hopelessness, fear, anger, confusion, isolation, division, mistrust, and general unhappiness.
Quoting Justine Calma
See, that's the problem: cheap goods. Spatula City™ carries nothing but the finest rubber goods, totally free of poisonous synthetic hydrocarbons. Low-IQ parents buy spatulas from just any place--a Dollar Store, for god's sake--and let their vulnerable infants gum them to discourage annoying crying. A quality spatula from Spatula City™ is safe for Baby to gum, chew on, eat with, or use as a sex toy when they are a bit older.
Spatula City™ carries a complete line of glass bottles, rubber nipples, wooden rattles and teething rings. And of course, a spatula for every purpose.
Here's the whole article. "Microplastics are everywhere — but are they harmful?" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3
Well, one still should use a quality spatula for such important research.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
So, being money-minded is genorisity then?
Okay, okay, I spent like two nano seconds googling for an article that reflected something I heard recently about damage to babies brains and I grabbed that one because I'm lazy. I'm going to do it again, only without a citation, and mention something else I read but a long time ago. Apparently some plastics can mimic estrogens and might lead to a feminization of men, sterility and a lack of interest in sex. I saw that as a good thing, but, well, interesting anyway. Go plastic! :razz:
1) Buy cotton clothing. Synthetic fabrics (like polyester) shed particles from their point of production onward. Tiny bits of cotton fiber (as well as linen, silk and wool fibers) rot, so they do not have long lifespans.
2) Use metal, ceramic, or glass containers for cooking and food storage (especially microwave heating).
3) Wear leather shoes. Synthetic soles and uppers shed a variety of microfiber and nanoparticles.
4) Use cloth or paper shopping bags.
More than 40% of all plastic made is packaging
"Single-Use Plastic Is Everywhere. Here's How To Use Less Plastic : Life Kit : NPR" https://www.npr.org/2021/07/12/1015296355/zero-waste-single-use-plastic-trash-recycle
Bottled water was uncommon 40 years ago. Bottling companies created a new product market. Where once there were a few Perrier bottles on the shelf, there are now long shelves of bottle water. Fairly often the water in the bottles is simply tap water.
Stop drinking bottled water!
One of the reasons for the high level of obesity in the US is the amount of soft drinks people consume, most of it in 1-use bottles. There is nothing one needs in a Coke or Pepsi. Drink it as an occasional treat once in a while -- not as a staple in your diet.
My use of plastic film bothers me, but I haven't made much progress in switching to something more eco friendly. Wax paper works for some things, but tears very easily.
Amen! :pray:
My concern is what it might be doing to people's lungs, Could it be a factor in asthma? COPD?
Well there you go! I'm satisfied. Nothing to see here folks. I mean look, the mom and son are even wearing masks. I'm sold.
Here's an instance where I should just ignore a question that is basically incoherent, but I won't.
(1) Being "money-minded" is not the same as being generous -- that's unrelated, not what I said or implied, and basically out of nowhere.
(2) What I was talking about with "mostly money" is taking out of context and was in response to a prior post about the reasons for why media isn't covering the story of climate change as well as they should. I mentioned money, because media is sponsored mainly by advertisers. The larger the audience, the more money per advertisement. If the stories don't get a large audience, or enough eyes or clicks, then there's less money to be made. I mentioned that as ONE reason, among others.
If you have nothing worthwhile left to say, it's not imperative to continue talking for its own sake.
We just have to educate and organize?
Sounds simple enough.
So should each of us try to organize groups in our towns or cities? (or find and join)
Demand our mayors and governors and local business leaders participate in meetings? (or maybe they are already and we need to join in)
Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do?
I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time.
This is a rather pathetic set of assumptions and attitude. It's one thing to be lazy and not to care; it's another to be proudly parading that attitude as an example to others. You don't know what the people who post on here do or do not do regarding the global warming issue. You also don't know how many people who don't themselves contribute read and and are influenced by what they read on this site. :roll:
And to work out arguments. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind here. But it's better to engage and work out anticipatory argument in your own head, with the help of others, for use where it does count: representatives, community organizing, etc.
Voting for those who agree with you is better than trying to save the world by saving a gallon of gas. Voting to force everyone else to comply is good. They don't have a "right" to fuck the planet. We can tread on them if they are treading on us.
:up:
Exactly.
Assuming the attitude you are replying to also tends to imply that we shouldn't really talk about anything, we're only here to kill time.
So why talk about climate change or war or the foundations of reality or knowledge or anything else? Any talk is as good as any other.
And most people browse, not posting anything.
As I understand it the planet cannot sustain both important habitats, soils, fisheries and aquifers and a human population of more than about 12% of the present population if everyone were to enjoy a standard of living equivalent to that enjoyed in the so-called developed nations. And that might be one of the more optimistic estimates when the prosperity enabled by cheap fossil fuel energy is taken into account. This is simply a question of resources and their sustainable use; I can't see how politics is going to make any difference to that basic equation.
Yes, I imagined that was probably true.
So we are going to vote Big Oil out of business? The higher ups are already working on "Smart Cities"...all this other 2030 initiative stuff. I don't know the details. But if you look around, there seems to be a consensus among those in power that there are, and have been, plans underway to induce a fourth industrial revolution.
I doubt our vote really counts for much unless Big Oil (etc) already agreed ahead of time...
Quote from World Economic Forum
"We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before."
Well, I like to exaggerate a bit for affect. I'm sure many people benefit from this site.
Well, there's that too. LOL! I've no doubt that the plutocracy has the best and brightest advising them on when to move and on what to move. While they do have a vested interest in gleaning the maximum possible return on their historical investments, they also want to have a penthouse seat on the next new thing. Anything we can do to convince them that it is time to jump forward is a good thing. As a shareholder, one can always whine at shareholder meetings and they have to listen to you. I've done so for clients in the past, and at least it's on the record. Environmentalists will buy a share so they can have a voice.
Also, with the exception of Trump and kids, many of the old school have kids who are more progressive and they can be influenced. When little Billy and Sally are rolling your socks at the dinner table, you sometimes bend.
It sounds simple, yes. But as you know, it involves all kinds of issues. Finding the time in our busy lives -- especially working 40+ hours a week, having a family, health concerns or limitations, endless distractions, exhaustion, etc. To say nothing about needing the attention and energy and interest needed to educate oneself, and the access to information and other resources (which can often be hard to find even with a decent library and internet access) -- it won't be found in mainstream media, usually.
That's why other people are important. But there's all kinds of issue there as well: ego, emotion, infighting, differences of strategies and tactics, different priorities, problems with leadership, finding enough people to commit -- finding places to meet, scheduling times that work for everyone to talk, setting an agenda, creating an action plan, and so on and on.
So I say "educate and organize," yes. And it does seem simple when it's just stated like that. But it's very hard indeed, especially in this divisive climate and in this culture that emphasizes individualism.
Quoting Yohan
I have no idea. But I wasn't referring specifically to the philosophy forum.
Quoting Yohan
Probably true, yes. But I know some people engage as well. I was just at a climate strike on Friday, plan on going to protest the last coal-powered plant in the state on the 3rd, etc. I make calls and write letters, sign petitions, donate money, go to meetings, encourage others to register to vote and actually do it, engage with selectman and state reps/senators, etc. It's not CLOSE to enough, and I take absolutely no pride in listing these weak, weak actions. I only say it to show that it's not necessarily ONLY talking.
At least you're honest about complacency. And you're not alone. But regardless, there are things you can do. Plenty of things. Even the smallest actions help. The first thing, however, is to really understand the situation. That's the education part, and the reason for my earlier post -- as a small attempt to give some facts.
This is an excellent point and, now that you articulated it, I realize this is definitely a big reason for my participation here. It helps me hone my arguments and familiarize myself with counter-arguments. Most of the counter-arguments are so often idiotic it makes it really an exercise in controlling my temper than anything else, but there have been several which have been worthwhile (although almost never in the political realm, which is discouraging and which makes me wonder a bit about the usefulness and effects of "philosophy").
Quoting Janus
Well I'm willing to delve into this more if you'd like, but from the arguments I've read it's not very convincing. I used to put overpopulation as one of the more important issues, even underlying the climate crisis -- and of course there is some degree of truth to it. But I've since changed my mind, and I think with good reasons, some of which I mentioned.
However, I think once again this serves as an excuse to do nothing. Reducing population isn't an option -- it's not going to happen. Neither is the destruction of capitalism. If those are our only options, we're essentially toast. But that's really not the case.
Where do you get the 2% number?
Quoting Yohan
The Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce, as well as Big Oil themselves, have now shifted their tones. They acknowledge climate change, and the are now officially endorsing "stakeholder capitalism." Big asset managers, like BlackRock, are using their proxy votes to elect "activist" board members, and shifting their resources into ESG funds. All of this sounds great -- but it's basically greenwashing nonsense. What's interesting is the fact that they're even TRYING to greenwash, and thus not in complete denial -- as that is becoming untenable and unpopular.
Yes indeed. The rock upon which we hone our edge must be hard, but smooth. If it's soft and mushy or rough and flaky it won't do you any good, at best, or even dull you, at worst. LOL! I know I feel dumber after engaging some of these rocks.
Should have been 12%, now amended. That said, one article I read claimed that only about 200,000.000 could be supported using organic farming methods. Petrochemical based fertilizers destroy the micro-organisms in soil, and so are long-term unsustainable. I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources.
200m is too many for me. Unless they are all attractive women.
The lifestyle of the average US citizen is extremely wasteful. We waste and pollute more per capita than almost any country -- I can find the exact numbers, but it's not good. If the world lived the way we do, we'd be toast. I'm not advocating that.
The fact remains that the major contributors to greenhouse gases are China and the US -- 45%. If you add the EU, India, Russia, and Japan -- you get to 70% of emissions. The rest of the world combined is 30%.
Focusing on global population is misleading. If we talk about that, we should restrict it to the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in history. Cut that population, and you cut a lot of problems.
You're a better man than me if you could handle that many!
I agree with you about the wastage in the US. I believe we Australians per capita are slightly worse than the US for CO2 emissions, and there are quite a few countries that are way worse. As far as production of waste goes apparently Canada is the worst, the US third after Bulgaria, and Australia is not in the top ten.
The problem with cutting population in the countries which are the economic dynamos, that would lead to collapse of those economies because of the workforce needed to sustain them. This is obviously not the case in underdeveloped countries where many people are malnourished or starving just because the population is higher than can be sustained without outside aid. If the economically developed countries collapse or even go into profound recession, then aid to the countries that need it will be greatly diminished, perhaps even cease.
Yeah, Qatar is by far the worst in the world per capita. Of the larger countries, Canada is worse than both the United States and Australia. All very wealthy countries.
If you can’t aspire to ever-increasing material prosperity, which is what the industrial revolution and the idea of progress has brought, then what do you aspire to? That’s why I think a suitable social and personal philosophy has to be discovered. Something along the lines of E F Schumacher’s ‘Small is Beautiful’ - decentralised, community-based, with an emphasis on harmonious co-existence with nature. It’s really the kind of lifestyle that the counter-culture envisaged in the sixties, although I don’t know if it really became established anywhere. I suppose the Israeli kibbutz was a model although I read that it has plenty of social problems of its own.
But at any rate, it’s now in the public interest that such a social philosophy is developed. We can’t pin everything on endless growth. As I said before, I’m guiltily aware of that when super-market shopping. As it happens, I’m selling up and tree-changing over the next 6 months, it might be an opportunity to actually try and realise some of these ideas.
https://centerforneweconomics.org/
Agree. I suspect this is what's behind the growing minimalism movement (which like anything else has also been hijacked by posers). I've been practicing a form of this for around 30 years.
“Foraging practiced by early gatherers and hunters could support as few as 0.0001 people per hectare of land and typical rates in more hospitable environments were around 0.002 people / ha . Shifting agriculture elevated that density by up to two orders of magnitude to 0.2 – 0.5 people / hectare ; the first societies practicing permanent agriculture ( Mesopotamia , Egypt , China ) raised it to 1 person / hectare . The best 19th - century traditional farming in such intensively cultivated places as southern China could support as many as five people / hectare while modern farming can feed more than 10 people / hectare and it does so by providing a much better average - quality diet than did the previous arrangements ( Smil 2017a ).”
https://eyeson.earth/blog-ii/2020/2/12/growth-by-vaclav-smil
In recent years concern has grown over the contribution of nitrogen (N) fertilizers to the environmental problems of nitrate pollution of waters and the pollution of the atmosphere with nitrous oxide, other oxides of nitrogen, and ammonia. These gases potentially contribute to the ‘greenhouse effect’ or global heating because of their increasing concentrations in the atmosphere and to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects the earth from ultraviolet radiation.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01048758
[i]So, how many people does synthetic nitrogen fertilizer actually feed? Below we draw upon several published estimates, which tend to converge on a similar share of the global population. Results published by Erisman et al. (2012) in the scientific magazine Nature are shown in the chart.7
These results also tie closely with Vaclav Smil’s widely-quoted estimates, which we discuss later.8
In the chart we see the actual global population trend in blue — growing from around 1.65 billion in 1900 to almost 7.4 billion in 2015.
The line in grey represents estimates of the number of people fed by synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. As we see, nitrogen fertilizers only became available following the commercialization of the Haber-Bosch process from 1910 onwards. Since then, Erisman et al. estimate it has supported 42 percent of global births over the past century. This amounts to 44 percent of the global population in 2000 being fed by nitrogen fertilizers, rising to 48 percent in 2008. Here we have extended this estimate to 2015 with the continuation of the assumption that 48 percent of the global population are fed by nitrogen fertilizers. Since the share supported by the process continues to rise, this may in fact be a conservative estimate. This means that in 2015, nitrogen fertilizers supported 3.5 billion people that otherwise would have died.
The red line represents the size of the global population which would therefore be supported without the use of nitrogenous fertilizers. This is shown simply as the actual population minus the number of people reliant on them for food production. Without this innovation, global population may have been reduced to only 3.5 to 4 billion people.[/i]
https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-people-does-synthetic-fertilizer-feed
:up: Good move!
I’m envious of you. As I mentioned, we’re getting ready to sell the house we’ve lived in for 21 years. It’s a big place, now five bedrooms and three bathrooms, and the amount of stuff we’ve got is just ridiculous, we have two offsite storage units. (My other half has many virtues but letting stuff go is not amongst them :yikes: ) But I would like to explore a much less consumer-oriented lifestyle as part of the change. What’s that 60’s saying? ‘Be the change you want to see in the world.’
The deeper issue is that materialism is so deeply embedded in modern social theory. I’m sure that ‘celebrity stardom’ and ‘space travel’ represent the sublimated longing for immortality and heaven, the only kinds that physical philosophy can envisage. But I’m firmly convinced we’ll never meaningfully leave Planet Earth - or should I say, Starship Earth, as it’s the only starship we’re ever going to have. We have to learn to tend the Earth properly. To have a culture that is dedicated and aligned to a more simple and humanistic way of life is going to take a radical change in social philosophy and culture, which I think is going to be imposed rather than chosen freely.
I'm sorry but it was you who brought up money as a/the reason why climate activists have slipped up in their mission to get the movers and shakers of the world to act.
When I ran with that and took it to its logical conclusion - greed - you object. That's odd and, might I add, incoherent.
There's a very easy way to check this, you know.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm not sure where you're struggling. You asked why society (governments, powers that be) hasn't dealt with climate change the right way. I said there are some obvious reasons (notice this is plural), and said "mostly money." I also mentioned lobbying and propaganda. You took the part about money as the "prime suspect", which is fine, and then went on to talk about greed. You said it's part of human nature, and a primary part. I disagreed, saying I see generosity and caring around a lot as well. To which you then looped back to the beginning and wrote:
Quoting TheMadFool
Which is completely incoherent. I never once said climate activists "slipped up" in their mission to push governments and the "powers that be" to act. Rather, the reason for the inaction, as I mentioned before, is largely because this industry earns them a lot of money and do not want it changed. They also buy off politicians, lobby, and use the media to propagandize.
So I don't know what you're talking about. To make it even clearer, here are my two claims:
(1) There has been no state action on climate change because politicians are bought by the corporate sector, especially the fossil fuel industry.
(2) Greed is not central to human nature.
In my defense though I see a lot of very intelligent members home in on why climate action is such a long-drawn-out process - there's an overall consensus that the culprit is money. Think of it, even someone like you who doesn't think this way mentions money as, at a bare minimum, a contributory factor. No smoke without fire, right?
The reason I broached the issue of human nature is I wanted to dig a little deeper; you know, get to the bottom of this puzzle which is both intriguing and equally saddening (humanity is committing mass suicide by becoming the instrument of its own extinction and we're taking a huge chunk of the biosphere with us - suicide bomber-like). What about us, perhaps some kind of an innate trait, drives climate change? After all, this is man-made climate change.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/01/if-you-cant-deny-it-downplay-it
My grocery store has started selling produce they would normally throw away. It's not rotten, it's just a little wilted or bruised.
All grocery store need to be doing that to decrease waste.
That’s an excellent idea. It all matters.
DO THIS: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-1000-years
People will not change their minds because you tell them that they should. People change their minds by coming to different conclusions by themselves NOT by being ridiculed and belittled by some know-it-all.
Present that facts and resist the (possibly unintended) urge to antagonise. Listen to the points made and provide information if you wish to.
[quote=Wikipedia]The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.[/quote]