Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Joey D]

As I said earlier, it would basically take the whole world to go full communist right now, not next year, along with growing our own food and making our own clothes, in order to slow global warming down enough.

Nope, communism wouldn't even remotely curtail climate change. If anything, it'd make it worse due to the state trying to provide everything for everyone, which would be a drain on resources. Nevermind that no government in the history of governments does anything efficiently. Plus, living in a communist world sounds like an absolute hellhole.

I'll take capitalism along with people taking personal responsibility.

 

[Strittan]

Nope, communism wouldn't even remotely curtail climate change. If anything, it'd make it worse due to the state trying to provide everything for everyone, which would be a drain on resources. Nevermind that no government in the history of governments does anything efficiently. Plus, living in a communist world sounds like an absolute hellhole.

I'll take capitalism along with people taking personal responsibility.

That’s sort of my point though, that the future is an even worse hellhole if nothing is done right now. The Arctic is predicted to be completely ice free during summer by mid century at this pace, and I don’t even wanna think about the weather we get if that happens.

I’m sorry, why would the state trying to provide be a drain on the resources any more than capitalism? Provide what anyway?

Communism is a bit extreme though, I know, but I used it to make a point. Democratic socialism is better.

 

[Dotini]

If climate change is real and truly threatening, then it is going to take vast amounts of cubic money to fight it. Only patriarchal capitalism yields the vast economic growth and immense tax revenues needed for the job. Fighting the future is not a task for nut-eating squirrels, but for well-funded scientists and engineers and their armies of welders, carpenters and masons.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's kind of ironic that the cause and the cure are so inherently linked - the principle driver of man's influence on the climate is economic growth... and as @Dotini alludes to above, that is also going to be required in order to have any chance of fighting it.

Ironically, however, it will probably require something closer to the Chinese model of capitalism i.e. unbridled (and some may say also largely unprincipled) economic expansion, but ruled with an iron fist and a government that doesn't care much for human rights, property rights, intellectual property or democracy.

 

[Dotini]

It's kind of ironic that the cause and the cure are so inherently linked - the principle driver of man's influence on the climate is economic growth... and as @Dotini alludes to above, that is also going to be required in order to have any chance of fighting it.

Ironically, however, it will probably require something closer to the Chinese model of capitalism i.e. unbridled (and some may say also largely unprincipled) economic expansion, but ruled with an iron fist and a government that doesn't care much for human rights, property rights, intellectual property or democracy.

Ugly truths! Most would prefer beautiful lies.
If the US can build a wall by presidential diktat, then it is still (barely) a patriarchal capitalist society, like China.

 

[Joey D]

I’m sorry, why would the state trying to provide be a drain on the resources any more than capitalism? Provide what anyway?

Everything. You understand how communism works right? At least how it's supposed to work? Everyone has a level playing field and everyone needs a job, that means production will need to go up in order to provide balance. For example, think about how many people do not have a car, under communism everyone gets a car which means more cars need to be made in order to provide one for everyone.

Nevermind that communism is a failed economic system, which ultimately leads to problems.

Communism is a bit extreme though, I know, but I used it to make a point. Democratic socialism is better.

Ah, democratic socialism, the political stance where great ideas are paid for with hopes and dreams.

Look, for the most part, people want to be free and don't want others telling them what to do. Communism, democratic socialism, or whatever you call it is the government telling people what to do while stealing the money they worked for to give it to others. It's immoral and completely ignores personal responsibility.

=====

I do agree that climate change is a real issue and that humans are probably the main, driving force behind it. But putting the government, any government, in charge isn't going to do anything worthwhile. It needs to start with people taking responsibility for their actions, then it needs to move onto people learning about why climate change exists and ways they can protect the environment.

Do that and you'll see an increased demand for products that are either ethically produced or are, at the very least, environmentally friendly. This is already happening though. Electric car ownership is growing, more and more companies are building green manufacturing plants, and the number of products from recycled goods has never been higher. It's not going to happen overnight, but it is going to happen.

And I'm not totally convinced its doom and gloom as quickly as you say it is. The Earth is a pretty robust place.

 

[Danoff]

Ugly truths! Most would prefer beautiful lies.
If the US can build a wall by presidential diktat, then it is still (barely) a patriarchal capitalist society, like China.

That's a bit of hyperbole. China has had a border wall for quite some time. They do other things, more draconian things, now. If Trump gets his wall money, it doesn't make the US into China. Not by a long shot.

 

[Strittan]

Everything. You understand how communism works right? At least how it's supposed to work? Everyone has a level playing field and everyone needs a job, that means production will need to go up in order to provide balance. For example, think about how many people do not have a car, under communism everyone gets a car which means more cars need to be made in order to provide one for everyone.

Nevermind that communism is a failed economic system, which ultimately leads to problems.



Ah, democratic socialism, the political stance where great ideas are paid for with hopes and dreams.

Look, for the most part, people want to be free and don't want others telling them what to do. Communism, democratic socialism, or whatever you call it is the government telling people what to do while stealing the money they worked for to give it to others. It's immoral and completely ignores personal responsibility.

=====

I do agree that climate change is a real issue and that humans are probably the main, driving force behind it. But putting the government, any government, in charge isn't going to do anything worthwhile. It needs to start with people taking responsibility for their actions, then it needs to move onto people learning about why climate change exists and ways they can protect the environment.

Do that and you'll see an increased demand for products that are either ethically produced or are, at the very least, environmentally friendly. This is already happening though. Electric car ownership is growing, more and more companies are building green manufacturing plants, and the number of products from recycled goods has never been higher. It's not going to happen overnight, but it is going to happen.

And I'm not totally convinced its doom and gloom as quickly as you say it is. The Earth is a pretty robust place.

LMFAO.

 

[BobK]

LMFAO.

Brilliant repartee there.

 

[Strittan]

Brilliant repartee there.

I simply give up. He ”won” if you like. It’s as if I was Jewish and he was a nazi, or vice versa.

When one starts throwing arguments such as “everyone in a communist society has got to have a car” out there, I’m done and outta here.

And no, I’m not a communist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

When one starts throwing arguments such as “everyone in a communist society has got to have a car” out there, I’m done and outta here.

Why? What offends you so much about the utility of personal/work transportation?

It’s as if I was Jewish and he was a nazi, or vice versa.

Riiiight.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There can't be any global waming if it's cold!

 

[Dotini]

All kinds of weird stuff is happening. Warmer at the poles, but frigid polar vortex coming south to cause life-threatening cold warnings as in Chicago. There, they've stopped murdering each other for drugs and are now doing it for warm winter coats.

 

[Novalee]

Looks like germany is getting off the coal train

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-coal-power-20190126-story.html

Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday.

I always thought it would be the americans to lead the way forward, and parts of the us certainly are forging ahead , but not to the degree like this is

 

[Rallywagon]

There can't be any global waming if it's cold!

Yeah... so, in Michigan, we will be back up to the 40s by Monday... after record lows tomorrow night.... I am really having a hard time bypassing the bad words I want to say about Trump. I just wish he was as competent as his persona projected.

Edit: fixed a spelling error.

 

[Exorcet]

There can't be any global waming if it's cold!

Even if people might only want to go by anecdotes, I feel like December used to actually have snow at some point. It didn't really this year, or for the past few years.

Looks like germany is getting off the coal train

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-coal-power-20190126-story.html

The article also mentioned the closure of nuclear powerplants, which makes it seem like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. It doesn't really make me confident in their choices. Maybe it will work out though, I don't know.

 

[niky]

I just wish he was as competent as his persona projected.\

Trump on anything science is Dunning-Kruger personified

 

[Dotini]

There can't be any global waming if it's cold!

It ceases to be a joking matter when and if there are cold weather crop losses. Are there any cold weather crop losses? In the UK, China or the American midwest?

 

[TenEightyOne]

It ceases to be a joking matter when and if there are cold weather crop losses. Are there any cold weather crop losses? In the UK, China or the American midwest?

UK farmers had a crap spring in 2018, then a drought, then torrential rainstorms. It certainly wan't a good year for arable farming here. No idea about China or the USA but arable farming is planned along a best average so the extremes will clearly have some negative effect.

 

[Mr Tree]

Nevermind that no government in the history of governments does anything efficiently.

This is a lie. If this was true the police and military would be privatised. Railroads where clearly more efficient then the privatised mess it is now in the UK...

Just be honnest and don't strawman more socialialistic or socialistic leaning ideas as you do multiple times in this thread.

If climate change is real and truly threatening, then it is going to take vast amounts of cubic money to fight it. Only patriarchal capitalism yields the vast economic growth and immense tax revenues needed for the job. Fighting the future is not a task for nut-eating squirrels, but for well-funded scientists and engineers and their armies of welders, carpenters and masons.

Which should be properly funded by the government. Our progress comes from the government: batteries, internet, gps, pc's,...

Or is that what you mean with patriarchal capitalism?

Everything. You understand how communism works right? At least how it's supposed to work? Everyone has a level playing field and everyone needs a job, that means production will need to go up in order to provide balance. For example, think about how many people do not have a car, under communism everyone gets a car which means more cars need to be made in order to provide one for everyone.

Why would everyone need a car? Also I can see why you say that's.communism it's just a little further you lump democratic socialists in the same category.

mind that communism is a failed economic system, which ultimately leads to problems.

Mind that capitalism is a failed system. It's amoral, it destroyes the planet, it's got people working for no to almost no money,...

Making big statements is easy right

Look, for the most part, people want to be free and don't want others telling them what to do. Communism, democratic socialism, or whatever you call it is the government telling people what to do while stealing the money they worked for to give it to others. It's immoral and completely ignores personal responsibility.

Marxism, socialism, communism, democratic socialism, social democracies are all diffrent systems. If you say they are the same you show your lack of honnesty, it shows how you don't want to know the diffrences as it would stop you from being able to act as if they're all as bad as the worst system of those ideas ever installed.

I disagree it's stealing, if that's stealing my boss steals my work from me. You can go about this discussion more nuanced but you don't seeem to want to. You seem to want to spew out some anti soviet propaganda from back in the 80's. People moved on ...

Brilliant repartee there.

Indeed it was, your post was so wrong there is nothing really to add but LMFAO. If you'd make an actual argument people would maybe engage.

The article also mentioned the closure of nuclear powerplants, which makes it seem like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. It doesn't really make me confident in their choices. Maybe it will work out though, I don't know.

I can see why ypu see it this way. I agree with you. But in a capitalistic system how do we incentivice the market to change to renewable instead of nuclear. Nuclear is 'clean' considering climate change but we can't act like it's clean considering the planet.
I don't see the market pouring money into a pit for renewable energy as the incentive if you want to make profits is nuclear energy.

 

[Famine]

If this was true the police and military would be privatised.

Defence of rights != provision of services.

Railroads where clearly more efficient then the privatised mess it is now in the UK...

The railways in the UK aren't privatised. Also, those are some rose-tinteds you've got on there - I remember when the services and rolling stock were in public hands too, and they were among the most derided topics of the day. Once I get off the awful Pacers we have up here, the railway network is actually pretty decent, if a bit pricey.

 

[Mr Tree]

Defence of rights != provision of services.

I disagree, defending my rights is the most important service a government can give. I don't see how this would not be a service. I wonder why you don't see it as one.

The railways in the UK aren't privatised. Also, those are some rose-tinteds you've got on there - I remember when the services and rolling stock were in public hands too, and they were among the most derided topics of the day. Once I get off the awful Pacers we have up here, the railway network is actually pretty decent, if a bit pricey.

I might be wrong so correct me but isn't your network publicly owned and then the government sets up applications for private companies to operate trains on a section of the network?

I might be wrong.

I also recall that this system is more expensive then the public one was so not surr if the current system is more efficient but I doubt that if the cost actually is higher.

Please do correct me where wrong, I'm not british and might have incorrect info.

 

[Famine]

I disagree, defending my rights is the most important service a government can give. I don't see how this would not be a service. I wonder why you don't see it as one.

The police and armed forces do not create an end product. They exist solely to defend rights. Defending rights is literally the role of government. Making food, water, electricity, gas, medicine, houses and so on is not.

I might be wrong so correct me but isn't your network publicly owned and then the government sets up applications for private companies to operate trains on a section of the network?

Yes. The railways are, as I said, not privatised. The government owns all of the railway network and almost all of the property on it, which it divides up into franchises that it allows private companies (which own the trains and carriages) to operate on, with government oversight ready to strip the contract from them if they don't meet government-imposed punctuality standards.

I also recall that this system is more expensive then the public one was so not surr if the current system is more efficient but I doubt that if the cost actually is.

Compared to 1980, the real cost per passenger is 3% higher now. The network is also carrying 133% more passengers. Punctuality is now perpetually hovering around 90%, which is a 15% improvement on 25 years ago. I can't say if it's better than British Rail days (pre-1990), because BR didn't keep punctuality statistics...

 

[Scaff]

It ceases to be a joking matter when and if there are cold weather crop losses. Are there any cold weather crop losses? In the UK, China or the American midwest?

But murdering each other for coats is OK?

 

[lancia delta hf]

There can't be any global waming if it's cold!

30.000 scientists say it's a scam. The scientists that say it isn't a scam are government funded. National Geographic countered Trumps comments by saying it should be colder . Climate change has and always will happen. The climate change campaign is nothing but a scam to make people rich and add a carbon tax. These people flew in 150 private jets to the climate change convention the other week. I see climate change organisations showing pics of before and now pics to show how the ice has melted, but they just show pics of different times of the year. There is no need for deceit if it was all legit.

Trump on anything science is Dunning-Kruger personified

Trump is a lot smarter than most people in this thread. He said wind turbines are bad for peoples health, everyone laughed at him. Yet it is proven to be completely correct. Al Gore said he wants to be the first climate billionaire, he said parts of America would be under water by now, he is full of ****, as is the whole campaign.

 

[TenEightyOne]

30.000 scientists say it's a scam. The scientists that say it isn't a scam are government funded. ...climate change campaign is nothing but a scam...they just show pics of different times of the year.

I'm not sure I agree, providing I understand the thrust of your argument.

Trump is a lot smarter than most people in this thread.

No.

He said wind turbines are bad for peoples health, everyone laughed at him. Yet it is proven to be completely correct.

Source required.

Al Gore said he wants to be the first climate billionaire, he said parts of America would be under water by now, he is full of ****

Al Gore quoting a report that was wrong doesn't invalidate the science behind climate change. I hope you're not too disappointed.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Source.

 

[Mr Tree]

The police and armed forces do not create an end product. They exist solely to defend rights. Defending rights is literally the role of government. Making food, water, electricity, gas, medicine, houses and so on is not.

How is this not a service, you seem to say a service can only be a product. And defending rights is not that a product so it's not a service or do I misunderstand you.
On top of that you start listing products, products all of which i consider a right, i.e. medicin, housing, gas/water electricity.

You're defenition of what is a service and what is not seems completely arbitrary to me.

 

[Scaff]

30.000 scientists say it's a scam.

Nope.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...00-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

The scientists that say it isn't a scam are government funded.

Which government?

Trump is a lot smarter than most people in this thread.

Citation required in a huge way.

He said wind turbines are bad for peoples health, everyone laughed at him. Yet it is proven to be completely correct.

Citation required

 

[Exorcet]

I can see why ypu see it this way. I agree with you. But in a capitalistic system how do we incentivice the market to change to renewable instead of nuclear. Nuclear is 'clean' considering climate change but we can't act like it's clean considering the planet.
I don't see the market pouring money into a pit for renewable energy as the incentive if you want to make profits is nuclear energy.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but if it's only generated over a relatively short time span then it shouldn't really have any negative impact on the environment. As far as I know, nuclear provides more energy than most renewable sources and is more reliable/consistent (you don't need wind, sun, etc). If Germany has found a way to get around that, then I guess there isn't an issue. It wasn't specified in the article so I'd assume that nuclear still holds it advantages, and if that is the case, I don't know why you would want to totally get rid of it yet.

As far as changing energy production in a capitalist system, you would need to convince enough people to care more about the environmental factor than prices (although I don't consider nuclear to be a "threat" at this point, and I feel that it is underutilized). I wouldn't mind seeing more initiative and organization on the part of consumers.

 

[Mr Tree]

Nuclear waste is a problem, but if it's only generated over a relatively short time span then it shouldn't really have any negative impact on the environment. As far as I know, nuclear provides more energy than most renewable sources and is more reliable/consistent (you don't need wind, sun, etc). If Germany has found a way to get around that, then I guess there isn't an issue. It wasn't specified in the article so I'd assume that nuclear still holds it advantages, and if that is the case, I don't know why you would want to totally get rid of it yet.

As far as changing energy production in a capitalist system, you would need to convince enough people to care more about the environmental factor than prices (although I don't consider nuclear to be a "threat" at this point, and I feel that it is underutilized). I wouldn't mind seeing more initiative and organization on the part of consumers.

Nuclear is a very good and efficient way of producikg energy and I can see why it seems mad to step away. On a pure scientific basis the solution to global warming might just be nuclear powerplants.

But I don't share your optimism of consumers organising. Our entire system revovles around capital, not just capital but ammassing capital. So the rentiers have all the leverage to push consumers into a direction. This is a fundamentally broken system that enlargens the problems we as a society face in this day and age.
It's a system build by and build for the rentiers.

It's from here that the idea of walking away from nuclear energy stems. If we refuse nuclear and we tax fossil to death, the market will be incentivised to invest in renewable. Which is just a detour and a step back, instead of just admitting the system is the issue.