You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
at least now we have the answer to the Fermi Paradox, which is nice.
I don’t have any solutions to this quandary, my feelings have already been made clear.
I do however have a point, that point is the change in attitude to Climate Change.
Currently the message is one of doom and repression. It’s a “don’t drive your car to work, catch the bus” or “stop eating meat because cows produce more harmful gas than you do” and so on.
Humans, most of them, only act when crisis occurs. Drip feed messsages that have barely any meaning or impact on them simply get ignored.
So, let’s create a crisis.
Start with the Northern Wastlands, where there is minimal impact on the tax generating South, and turn the lights off.. stop sending fuel up there and stop delivering food.
Then hit them over the head with the Climate Change message and impacts, and treat it as a sort of “if you don’t change, this is what the world will look like for your benefit scrounging children’s children”
🤣💪💩
HTHs
Currently the message is one of doom and repression.
Hardly. It's one of 'live within your means'. I don't see any capitalist types howling about the infringement of the human rights of the poor because they can't spend money they don't have. The problem is a fairly simple one in that we place no intrinsic value on the natural world. Resources are only of value once they are extracted, and 'owned'. Until we start charging Oil and Mining companies for taking stuff out of the ground, nothing will happen.
Personally I think the only short term solution is nuclear war, but I doubt people will go for that.
Personally I think the only short term solution is nuclear war, but I doubt people will go for that.
What's the latest thinking in terms of global warming? Is it, that we are going to get a bit warmer and the deserts are going to expand - plus some coastal cities are going to get reclaimed by the sea.
Or is it, KT extinction event bad?
Because if it's the former, isn't it rather misanthropic to hope 3 billion die in a nuclear exchange to save the fluffy bunnies and butterflies? Why is natures suffering more important than ours? Surely we and our ancestors have been natures bitch for millions of years. Why, if we can find alternative means to survive climate change - is it so important to stop it?
"One would like to see mankind spend the balance of the century in a total effort to clean up and groom the surface of the globe — wipe out the jungles, turn deserts and swamps into arable land, terrace barren mountains, regulate rivers, eradicate all pests, control the weather, and make the whole land mass a fit habitation for Man. The globe should be our and not nature's home, and we are no longer nature's guests." - Hoffer
The above is a bit extreme, but you get my drift.
And if it's the latter, there's no point in a climate changing nuclear holocaust that wipes out mankind - because nature will do that for us.
“One would like to see mankind spend the balance of the century in a total effort to clean up and groom the surface of the globe — wipe out the jungles, turn deserts and swamps into arable land, terrace barren mountains, regulate rivers, eradicate all pests, control the weather, and make the whole land mass a fit habitation for Man. The globe should be our and not nature’s home, and we are no longer nature’s guests.” – Hoffer
The phrase "a fate worse than death" comes to mind
Why is natures suffering more important than ours? Surely we and our ancestors have been natures bitch for millions of years.
The hubris and arrogance of the modern human race summed up in two sentences 🙂
Seriously though. Do you really think of ourselves as apart from nature? Last time I looked we needed the planet more than it needs us. Any solutions to climate change are to save us, not the planet. The planet will be just fine without us, however it happens.
And the nuclear war solution was a bit of a joke. Although I can see many positives in it.
This is quite interesting reading:
It got me thinking.. What if we banned office working unless absolutely necessary. For a lot of offices, broadband, skype etc makes it irrelevant. Say we cut out 75% of daily commuter traffic. How much CO2 would we save? How much better would many peoples lives be if they werent sitting for 1-2hrs in a traffic jam and instead spending that time with friends and families?
Can Uber save the world? Everybody ditches their cars and just uses electric self driven Ubers??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45786690
Can Uber save the world?
More frilling round the edges. Does it stop the fossil fuel industry extracting oil, gas and coal from the ground? If not then no. This is the only question that needs answering IMO. The only actions worth taking are those that prevent the extraction of fossil fuels.
Does it stop the fossil fuel industry extracting oil, gas and coal from the ground?
Could help to reduce it though...................
More frilling round the edges. Does it stop the fossil fuel industry extracting oil, gas and coal from the ground? If not then no. This is the only question that needs answering IMO. The only actions worth taking are those that prevent the extraction of fossil fuels.
If you are looking for huge impact single decisions then good luck.
If you can reduce millions of things by an amount we get a significant reduction. In terms of general livability scrapping personal car journeys in cities is massive, it creates more space for mass transit and the culture for alternatives. Every day I see full trams and a busy cycle way, each one of those people is probably 3-5l of petrol per day that is not being consumed, we are now at 41million journeys per year in manchester, if that was just 2l per journey then it's 80 million litres of fuel. find a way to double that and that is stopping people taking fossil fuels out of the ground. Replicate that across a few places and it does become significant and easy to adopt.
find a way to double that and that is stopping people taking fossil fuels out of the ground.
Is it though? We've had a massive increase in renewables, a massive increase in train an public transport usage, a massive increase in recycling, a massive reduction in single use plastics like plastic bags. Yet still fossil fuel use is still increasing. We're well past the point where supply is reactive to demand. Supply creates the demand, and market forces are not going to solve this. I agree that it's unlikely that these sort of huge macro-economic actions will happen, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the only solution.
Without wanting to sound like a tin-hat conspiracist, I actually think the likes of the US govt and corporate elite want it to happen. There's a lot of money to be made out of the ultimate disaster-capitalist opportunity, and the geopolitical chaos will provide excellent opportunities for a new wave of colonialism.
Nice cut/paste/crop graph there...
But that reads that despite a rise in overall energy demand the oil use is slowing and other sources are taking over?
That with an increasing world population and industrialisation we are not increasing consumption of fossil fuels with demand?
Is it though? We’ve had a massive increase in renewables, a massive increase in train an public transport usage, a massive increase in recycling, a massive reduction in single use plastics like plastic bags.
Has there been a massive increase in public transport use? You are looking at national issues and comparing to a global demand, the UK is a very small cog in that but one that needs to play our part.