Author Topic: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5  (Read 14711 times)

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9432
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #100 on: October 10, 2018, 06:17:06 PM »
We could almost start a separate thread on sustainable agricultural/food production practices.  I didn't put sustainable in " " even though I technically could have, because no ecosystem is perfectly balanced, and every time something gets sold off a farm, (or nutrients go down your sewage system) those nutrients are gone.

Just to improve my own food in-sourcing, I am planting 3 hazelnut bushes (this fall if I can get them, next spring otherwise).  I found an interesting article from New Brunswick about planting hazelnuts in non-productive parts of sugar bushes - better use of land, double cropping, different busy times so spread the workload out, etc.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #101 on: October 10, 2018, 06:24:33 PM »
Now you're assuming that we should be keeping our food prices as artificially low as they currently are. I disagree with that premise. I don't think we should have ag subsidies any more than we should have subsidies for fossil fuel companies.

Yet here we are, spending 12 billion dollars extra on buying ag products that won't be sold to China because of the tariffs President Blowhard instituted. #winning #fiscalresponsibility #freemarket!

No, I'm not.

Farm subsidies have the effect of increasing the potential profitability of farming without increasing the price consumers pay for food at the grocery store (or alternatively decreasing the cost of food at the grocery story without decreasing farmer profitability).

Removing agricultural subsidies would indeed increase the prices paid for food by consumers. Since removing subsidies doesn't mean the farmers see any more money per bushel of apples or pound of turkey I don't see how it would make it more economically viable for a farmer to invest in more labor intensive agricultural practices.

To make more labor intensive (but more productive per acre) agricultural practices economically viable, you'd either need to drive up food prices paid by consumers while keeping farm subsidies in place, or remove farm subsidies and drive up food prices even further beyond the effect of eliminating the subsidies.*

*Or, for the sake of completeness, I suppose you could keep prices paid by consumers constant while driving down the cost of human labor, but that (like making food more expensive in a world with many people who are still food insecure) is undesirable for a lot of reasons.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #102 on: October 10, 2018, 06:34:49 PM »
Now you're assuming that we should be keeping our food prices as artificially low as they currently are. I disagree with that premise. I don't think we should have ag subsidies any more than we should have subsidies for fossil fuel companies.

Yet here we are, spending 12 billion dollars extra on buying ag products that won't be sold to China because of the tariffs President Blowhard instituted. #winning #fiscalresponsibility #freemarket!

No, I'm not.

Farm subsidies have the effect of increasing the potential profitability of farming without increasing the price consumers pay for food at the grocery store (or alternatively decreasing the cost of food at the grocery story without decreasing farmer profitability).

Removing agricultural subsidies would indeed increase the prices paid for food by consumers. Since removing subsidies doesn't mean the farmers see any more money per bushel of apples or pound of turkey I don't see how it would make it more economically viable for a farmer to invest in more labor intensive agricultural practices.

To make more labor intensive (but more productive per acre) agricultural practices economically viable, you'd either need to drive up food prices paid by consumers while keeping farm subsidies in place, or remove farm subsidies and drive up food prices even further beyond the effect of eliminating the subsidies.*

*Or, for the sake of completeness, I suppose you could keep prices paid by consumers constant while driving down the cost of human labor, but that (like making food more expensive in a world with many people who are still food insecure) is undesirable for a lot of reasons.

If we didn't subsidize farmers, wouldn't the poor be hurt by the higher prices more than those better off?  I think so.  I think subsidies make sense to help out those that have a hard time making ends meet.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #103 on: October 10, 2018, 06:56:06 PM »
If we didn't subsidize farmers, wouldn't the poor be hurt by the higher prices more than those better off?  I think so.  I think subsidies make sense to help out those that have a hard time making ends meet.

That is true.

Now to turn around and play devil's advocate, if the primary goal of farm subsidies is solely keep food affordable for the poor, dollar for dollar it'd almost certainly be more cost effective to increase funding (and expand eligibility) for food stamps, since in that case each dollar of spending is going directly to make food more affordable to people in need while overall farm subsidies (things like subsidized crop insurance) have to spend enough money to make food more affordable to both people in need and people with plenty of money.

There are other arguments for subsidies like crop insurance and price supports (smooths out otherwise extreme economic cycles, avoids waves of farmer suicides like we say in the 1980s, avoids the national security implications of becoming a nation depending on imports simply to keep its population fed as we see now in much of Western Europe and China, means presidential candidates are no longer judged by their ability to know the price of a gallon of milk, because the average voter is worried about being able to afford milk anymore) which individual people in this discussion may find more or less compelling. But while farm subsidies do help to reduce hunger in the USA, I wouldn't be comfortable saying that was a primary motivating factor for why they were originally put in place.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9432
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #104 on: October 10, 2018, 06:58:18 PM »
Re American farm subsidies, read Joel Salatin - his take is the subsidies help the big get bigger and hurt the small family farm. Also  marketing boards, rules, etc., are all geared to large producers and create almost insurmountable hurdles for small producers.  I'm not a farmer and not an American, so don't know just how accurate he is, but he is definitely a small family farmer.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #105 on: October 10, 2018, 07:19:03 PM »
Re American farm subsidies, read Joel Salatin - his take is the subsidies help the big get bigger and hurt the small family farm.

I agree he says this, but am not convinced it is correct.

Quote
Also  marketing boards, rules, etc., are all geared to large producers and create almost insurmountable hurdles for small producers.

I don't know how much of it is "geared towards large producers" but I do agree that, regardless of the specific area of the economy, the more regulation/rules/layers of bureaucracy are involved, the more that tilts the playing field towards the biggest players and away from the little guys. It is the same amount of effort to figure out what all the rules and requirements actually mean and comply with them whether you are farming 40 acres or 4,000, but for the guy farming 4,000 acres (who will likely still be a family farmer depending on what part of the country you live in) he's able to spread that cost of compliance over a much large number of bushels.

If a particular regulation is a needed one I don't see a good way to avoid this consequence. However, in many cases we probably could reduce the regulatory burden on farmers in some ways without risking a decrease in food safety.

Quote
I'm not a farmer and not an American, so don't know just how accurate he is, but he is definitely a small family farmer.

He's an interesting guy. I don't know how representative he is of farmers as a group given how much of his income is tied to his books and how much of his time is devoted to going around giving talks to people who read The Omnivore's Dilemma rather than farming itself.

But I would say it is really good that we have people like him who are experimenting with the best ways to intensify agriculture given modern techniques and approaches for when and if food prices get high enough that we need to do so.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #106 on: October 10, 2018, 07:26:12 PM »
Why not just make a revenue neutral tax on carbon-intensive fertilizers and use that to subsidize smart practices?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #107 on: October 10, 2018, 07:32:14 PM »
And we can add these to the mix of reasons for despair:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23639612/climate-change-report-2040/

And
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/410871-gop-shrugs-off-dire-study-warning-of-global-warming

Many of the republicans were saying that we could only do things if we can keep a strong economy, while we are at very low unemployment and a generally pretty strong economy. This framing is dangerous because it pits climate change action against economic stability as a zero sum game. It does not recognize that the do-nothing approach actually has significant costs. Ugh.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #108 on: October 10, 2018, 07:47:06 PM »
Why not just make a revenue neutral tax on carbon-intensive fertilizers and use that to subsidize smart practices?

You certainly could do that. Either independently or as part of a general carbon tax.

The carbon emissions from synthetic fertilizer come primarily from cracking natural gas to produce hydrogen, and the electricity required to convert diatomic hydrogen and diatomic nitrogen into ammonia. The second is a high carbon process if you use electricity from coal plants and a low/zero carbon process if you use electricity from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/etc.

I've seen proposals to use "stranded" wind energy in the middle of the country to create synthetic fertilizer is an essentially carbon neutral fashion, replacing the hydrogen from natural gas with hydrogen generated by electrolysis of water (no CO2 required if you use electricity from wind energy) and also use wind energy to power the creation of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen gas. These likely wouldn't be economically viable on their own, but with a tax like the one you propose, we might see significant uptake of "zero carbon" nitrogen fertilizers. 

sixwings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #109 on: October 10, 2018, 08:54:12 PM »
That's a very interesting graph indeed @Meowkins.

Thanks M41 for chiming in and adding some more plant vs. meat-based diet data. SisX and Retiredat63; you are right that I did not say that your idea of agriculture was impossible. However, I'm not sure how sustainable that model would be at 7+ billion people. As far as I'm aware of most permacultures deliver way less caloric value on a same area so it would require lots of land. Totally possible in many not so populated areas, but I wonder how it would work for densely populated areas. I'd love to see some data/studies on this model though, so if you could show me some I'll have a look (no time to do any searches). I also think the transition to such a model will take some time though, so cutting meat consumption now is in my opinion still the better solution. The amounts of meat we eat in the west are just too much - if we'd all cut in half a model like you proposed would IMO also be much easier to set up and sustain. However, as I said I don't have numbers on this so I might just need to dig deeper!

Re health and red/processed meats. I agree that lots of nutrition science is just hard to perform and/or poorly performed, however the processed meat and cancer link is pretty obvious. Actually the Dutch Nutritional Center recently reduced the amount of meat they recommend in the diet due to the "strong scientific evidence" for there being a connection between processed/red meats and colon cancer. These folks are usually suuuuper slow and reserved with changing their recommendations + the farmers lobby is pretty damn strong so that they've changed this was huge news.

The links I provided yesterday were just a quick google search as it was late (hence I called over M41) but there's plenty of data out there.

@sixwings interesting that you mention lab grown meat. I'm very interested in the technological developments behind it, but I honestly wonder what problem it will solve. We already eat plenty of meat for nutritional value (rather too much) and too my knowledge lab meat still takes a lot of energy to grow (more than just crops - but please correct me if I'm wrong!). Beyond that, if people are already scared af about GMOs I wonder how willing they will be to adopt this.. The only actual problem that lab grown meat would solve here is that it would allow us to NOT cut our consumption but using less land/animals for the production of meat.

I think getting people to eat significantly less meat, at least in the US, at a scale that makes a difference, isn't going to go anywhere. Meat consumption is such a huge part of american cuisine and culture that I don't think it's really going to go anywhere at the levels it needs to go. So, if people aren't going to eat less meat we need to make that meat with less environmental impacts. Potentially lab grown meat would produce 96% lower ghg emissions, use 45% less energy, 99% less land use and 96% less water use. If it's cheaper than conventional meat at the supermarket shelves I think we would see a lot of people buying it over conventional meat. We could then put that land to better use. (source: https://phys.org/news/2011-06-lab-grown-meat-emissions-energy.html)

I think it's possible that in like 30-50 years conventional meat is so expensive it is a treat and we are eating mostly lab grown meat. A big hurdle is going to be regulations and the ag lobby that will want to kill this for obvious reasons. Anti-GMO people may have issues but I think people would adapt to it and eat it if it's cheap. People drink pop instead of water and it's just a bunch of chemicals. This is real meat, just grown in a lab not a cow. It can even be genetically enhanced to include add-ins like omega 3s, it can  enhanced to be richer, fattier and more flavourful that conventional meat. But to go anywhere it needs to be cheap.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #110 on: October 11, 2018, 06:19:05 AM »
While I welcome and appreciate peopleís desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I havenít participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #111 on: October 11, 2018, 09:05:15 AM »
While I welcome and appreciate peopleís desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I havenít participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu

Those top 100 polluting companies don't pollute in a vacuum. They create products because we use them and they pollute because no one cares. Until we get Democrats in power who actually are bold enough to create regulations, we're stuck with doing what we can do, which is to be wise and active consumers.

In other words, if you must buy a car, buy an electric car. If you buy a rug, buy one made out of recycled plastic. If you want straws out of our lives, ask the server to not give you a straw.

When enough people decide to Do The Right Thing, then things can change. Like in Washington state, with any luck, in November.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #112 on: October 11, 2018, 09:37:36 AM »
While I welcome and appreciate peopleís desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I havenít participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu

Milton Friedman (one of the ultimate free-marketeers) would support a carbon tax:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/#32b2bfd86928
Quote
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?

Milton Friedman: Yes, there's a case for the government to do something. There's always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there's always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There's no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That's my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there's more of  a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what's the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

The argument is simple: government regulation is effective when there are externalities that affect a third party. He suggests that carbon pricing is a good tool.

This is a case where I agree with Friedman.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #113 on: October 11, 2018, 11:53:58 AM »

Now you're assuming that we should be keeping our food prices as artificially low as they currently are. I disagree with that premise. I don't think we should have ag subsidies any more than we should have subsidies for fossil fuel companies.

Yet here we are, spending 12 billion dollars extra on buying ag products that won't be sold to China because of the tariffs President Blowhard instituted. #winning #fiscalresponsibility #freemarket!

@SisterX you're speaking my language.

I've made two videos about subsidies to animal agriculture in particular. Wanna see em? They're only 2-3 minutes long.

Full disclosure - I made these to encourage people to donate to my lobbying campaign to end subsidies to animal agriculture:

The first video is on my campaign site: https://www.lobbyists4good.org/animal-ag-subsidies

The second video is here.  https://youtu.be/uKyhPn4BpS4
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 12:00:30 PM by Malaysia41 »

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #114 on: October 11, 2018, 01:55:05 PM »
While I welcome and appreciate peopleís desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I havenít participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu

Those top 100 polluting companies don't pollute in a vacuum. They create products because we use them and they pollute because no one cares. Until we get Democrats in power who actually are bold enough to create regulations, we're stuck with doing what we can do, which is to be wise and active consumers.

In other words, if you must buy a car, buy an electric car. If you buy a rug, buy one made out of recycled plastic. If you want straws out of our lives, ask the server to not give you a straw.

When enough people decide to Do The Right Thing, then things can change. Like in Washington state, with any luck, in

I clicked through to the 100 companies and it seems they are all oil / coal / resource miners. So I agree, if we reduce our demand, we can reduce their impact.

Going back to the first article, I'm not sure tho what I'm being advised to do, except vote left. I don't think Corbyn will ever get in tho, he's not got the personality. Labour have a real chance here in AUS but they aren't very left wing anymore :). So what else?

I do enjoy an article that blames everything on Thatcher, so thanks for sharing, Kris :)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #115 on: October 11, 2018, 02:11:29 PM »
While I welcome and appreciate peopleís desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I havenít participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu

Those top 100 polluting companies don't pollute in a vacuum. They create products because we use them and they pollute because no one cares. Until we get Democrats in power who actually are bold enough to create regulations, we're stuck with doing what we can do, which is to be wise and active consumers.

In other words, if you must buy a car, buy an electric car. If you buy a rug, buy one made out of recycled plastic. If you want straws out of our lives, ask the server to not give you a straw.

When enough people decide to Do The Right Thing, then things can change. Like in Washington state, with any luck, in

I clicked through to the 100 companies and it seems they are all oil / coal / resource miners. So I agree, if we reduce our demand, we can reduce their impact.

Going back to the first article, I'm not sure tho what I'm being advised to do, except vote left. I don't think Corbyn will ever get in tho, he's not got the personality. Labour have a real chance here in AUS but they aren't very left wing anymore :). So what else?

I do enjoy an article that blames everything on Thatcher, so thanks for sharing, Kris :)

We won't reduce demand by wishing. We reduce demand by creating more attractive alternatives and recognizing that as long as our model is "unfettered, continuous expansion and consumption because that is what our economy is based on," there's only so much headway we will make.

And this article is far from blaming everything on Thatcher. There's a pretty good argument to be made that the Clinton administration was what cemented full-bore neoliberalism as a political ideal for the Democratic party.


Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #116 on: October 11, 2018, 02:16:37 PM »
So what do we do?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #117 on: October 11, 2018, 02:22:32 PM »
So what do we do?

We force the Big Conversations on our political candidates, companies, and governments. Not the should we have plastic straws conversations. Obciously, this has to come from the left, because it will never come from the right or the libertarians.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #118 on: October 11, 2018, 02:46:01 PM »
So what do we do?

We force the Big Conversations on our political candidates, companies, and governments. Not the should we have plastic straws conversations. Obciously, this has to come from the left, because it will never come from the right or the libertarians.

In a world where even leftists don't want to get rid of their SUVs and large houses and flying across an ocean, how is that going to be managed? There's simply no will to have Big Conversations.

Sure, there's a lot of lip service but there are only token changes from most people. Recycling is easy because we can still consume as long as we recycle the cardboard and plastic shells! Large houses are ok because we can throw up a shitton of solar panels! Stop flying, well, that's just too much to ask.

I oscillate between despondency and hope.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #119 on: October 11, 2018, 02:54:08 PM »
So what do we do?

We force the Big Conversations on our political candidates, companies, and governments. Not the should we have plastic straws conversations. Obciously, this has to come from the left, because it will never come from the right or the libertarians.

In a world where even leftists don't want to get rid of their SUVs and large houses and flying across an ocean, how is that going to be managed? There's simply no will to have Big Conversations.

Sure, there's a lot of lip service but there are only token changes from most people. Recycling is easy because we can still consume as long as we recycle the cardboard and plastic shells! Large houses are ok because we can throw up a shitton of solar panels! Stop flying, well, that's just too much to ask.

I oscillate between despondency and hope.

Yes, very true. I agree with everything you said. Thereís no will to do what is necessary to prevent catastrophe. Because our lives are built around consumption. As is our economy. So we ignore that and talk about straws and recycling.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #120 on: October 11, 2018, 03:03:45 PM »
Okay, I believe that the liberal party is as capitalist and greedy as the right, but fail to see what the end game here is in making it about neoliberals and their framing of individual action.

I guess I just disagree with the article. I think that it all exists as "Yes, and"s.

We should reduce our consumption and live more ecofriendly lifestyles.

Yes, and we should pressure corporations into environmentally friendly practices and products.

Yes, and we should lobby our government to create legislation that protects the earth.

Like, all three have to happen and be moving forward in parallel. Representative gov't that is shaped by an eco-conscious society that bridles corporations. What is the other option? That we just rail against corporations and capitalism and get pissed at corporations for not caring about the future? Or asking our government to impose regulations on corporations on behalf of a citizenry that can't get enough of consuming endlessly? For sure, a government that imposed regulations on corporations *or* the average person without getting that representative buy in would be doomed to fail.

I honestly think that the action taken to address climate change is going to have to address the issue of unbridled capitalism and consumerism necessarily. To politicize climate change and make it an armchair discussion about capitalism and neoliberals is even more is a distraction.


RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9432
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #121 on: October 11, 2018, 04:46:48 PM »
Sort of OT - I once read a historical novel where a noblewoman commented that the nobility care about honour, and the merchants should never be allowed to run anything because all they care about is profit (she was dealing with dishonest greedy merchants at the time).  Not that I think the feudal system was all that great, but I don't think it was generally as bad as the Victorians made it out to be.  But we seem to be in the scenario where the merchants (read big business) run everything behind the scenes, and we are puppets.  After all, look at the research that goes into marketing products we don't really need.

I'm buying hazelnut bushes next week to increase my local food production (local = my yard).

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #122 on: October 11, 2018, 05:33:14 PM »
Okay, I believe that the liberal party is as capitalist and greedy as the right, but fail to see what the end game here is in making it about neoliberals and their framing of individual action.

I guess I just disagree with the article. I think that it all exists as "Yes, and"s.

We should reduce our consumption and live more ecofriendly lifestyles.

Yes, and we should pressure corporations into environmentally friendly practices and products.

Yes, and we should lobby our government to create legislation that protects the earth.

Like, all three have to happen and be moving forward in parallel. Representative gov't that is shaped by an eco-conscious society that bridles corporations. What is the other option? That we just rail against corporations and capitalism and get pissed at corporations for not caring about the future? Or asking our government to impose regulations on corporations on behalf of a citizenry that can't get enough of consuming endlessly? For sure, a government that imposed regulations on corporations *or* the average person without getting that representative buy in would be doomed to fail.

I honestly think that the action taken to address climate change is going to have to address the issue of unbridled capitalism and consumerism necessarily. To politicize climate change and make it an armchair discussion about capitalism and neoliberals is even more is a distraction.

Then the big question, as Mustachian people, is how to use our money (clout) to make the biggest impact? Is there any way to invest my money that actually makes a statement? We're a large group with, collectively, a lot of money. If we could all move our money into a fund that supports socio-climatic progress, that would be a rather big thing.

As it is, I'm getting a little upset that I'm saving money and I have it invested in companies that are destroying the planet I and my children live on. WTF? I can stop buying shit, and I have, but the fact that my money is still invested with these destructive corporations is what they hear the loudest. So what do I do with my money? Do I abandon the idea of FIRE and give it all away to charities that are working on these problems? Can FIRE even exist soon? It's based on capitalism, and according to the IPCC report and this one to the UN, capitalism is essentially doomed unless it seriously changes everything about itself. How do I reconcile that I am a huge part of the problem by propping up the current system, and how do I take myself out of that without tanking some possible futures? (Because, of course, things could be less dire than reported. The system could, in fact, change with enough will to do so. Etc. The reason I'm not currently giving away all my money is because, duh, if things continue on as they are then having money will be more helpful than not having money.*)

*If it was me alone to worry about, I probably would give away most of my money and just keep around a modest e-fund. But I have kids to think about, and since I have kids it's my job to protect them, care for them, and do my best to ensure they have a future. That's worth fighting for. Hence all my angst on this topic.


@RetiredAt63 - As usual you and I are thinking along similar lines. I discovered that I have wild filberts (hazelnuts) just starting to grow on my property. I'm going to move them to a better area, but I'm pleased as punch to have some free food plants to add to my "stash". :) Two apple trees, a cherry tree, an indoor/outdoor lemon tree, 6 blueberry bushes...next year most likely two peach trees. :) And I'm wondering if we have anywhere we could put grapes?

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #123 on: October 11, 2018, 05:42:02 PM »
Okay, I believe that the liberal party is as capitalist and greedy as the right, but fail to see what the end game here is in making it about neoliberals and their framing of individual action.

I guess I just disagree with the article. I think that it all exists as "Yes, and"s.

We should reduce our consumption and live more ecofriendly lifestyles.

Yes, and we should pressure corporations into environmentally friendly practices and products.

Yes, and we should lobby our government to create legislation that protects the earth.

Like, all three have to happen and be moving forward in parallel. Representative gov't that is shaped by an eco-conscious society that bridles corporations. What is the other option? That we just rail against corporations and capitalism and get pissed at corporations for not caring about the future? Or asking our government to impose regulations on corporations on behalf of a citizenry that can't get enough of consuming endlessly? For sure, a government that imposed regulations on corporations *or* the average person without getting that representative buy in would be doomed to fail.

I honestly think that the action taken to address climate change is going to have to address the issue of unbridled capitalism and consumerism necessarily. To politicize climate change and make it an armchair discussion about capitalism and neoliberals is even more is a distraction.

Then the big question, as Mustachian people, is how to use our money (clout) to make the biggest impact? Is there any way to invest my money that actually makes a statement? We're a large group with, collectively, a lot of money. If we could all move our money into a fund that supports socio-climatic progress, that would be a rather big thing.

As it is, I'm getting a little upset that I'm saving money and I have it invested in companies that are destroying the planet I and my children live on. WTF? I can stop buying shit, and I have, but the fact that my money is still invested with these destructive corporations is what they hear the loudest. So what do I do with my money? Do I abandon the idea of FIRE and give it all away to charities that are working on these problems? Can FIRE even exist soon? It's based on capitalism, and according to the IPCC report and this one to the UN, capitalism is essentially doomed unless it seriously changes everything about itself. How do I reconcile that I am a huge part of the problem by propping up the current system, and how do I take myself out of that without tanking some possible futures? (Because, of course, things could be less dire than reported. The system could, in fact, change with enough will to do so. Etc. The reason I'm not currently giving away all my money is because, duh, if things continue on as they are then having money will be more helpful than not having money.*)

*If it was me alone to worry about, I probably would give away most of my money and just keep around a modest e-fund. But I have kids to think about, and since I have kids it's my job to protect them, care for them, and do my best to ensure they have a future. That's worth fighting for. Hence all my angst on this topic.


@RetiredAt63 - As usual you and I are thinking along similar lines. I discovered that I have wild filberts (hazelnuts) just starting to grow on my property. I'm going to move them to a better area, but I'm pleased as punch to have some free food plants to add to my "stash". :) Two apple trees, a cherry tree, an indoor/outdoor lemon tree, 6 blueberry bushes...next year most likely two peach trees. :) And I'm wondering if we have anywhere we could put grapes?

We have a book on our shelf called The Ethical Investor which explains how to find ethical investments. I actually picked it up yesterday after having the same thought as you. It was telling me to stock pick though but there was a small section at the back about managed funds. I do know that there are sustainable / ethical managed funds available (obviously with higher fees than Vanguard). But those fees might be a suitable ethical surcharge.

ETA: There is a managed fund like this in AUS that is performing extremely well.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9432
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #124 on: October 11, 2018, 05:43:21 PM »
@RetiredAt63 - As usual you and I are thinking along similar lines. I discovered that I have wild filberts (hazelnuts) just starting to grow on my property. I'm going to move them to a better area, but I'm pleased as punch to have some free food plants to add to my "stash". :) Two apple trees, a cherry tree, an indoor/outdoor lemon tree, 6 blueberry bushes...next year most likely two peach trees. :) And I'm wondering if we have anywhere we could put grapes?

Yes to ethical investing, must investigate. I have some cash ready for investing while the market is down.

I am having work done outside, and while the big Kubota is here I am moving things around.  The two cherry trees are moving to a better site, the holes are dug for the hazelnuts, and I think I know where I want my 2 blueberry bushes and a haskap  (still in pots) to go.  I love blueberries, I should be growing my own!   2 bushes are not enough, I will be doing air layering next spring.

I just harvested my sweet potatoes*, not enough to get me much past Christmas.  I need to give them a long raised row, instead of crowding them in a raised bed.  Carole Deppe has a point, squash are similar in taste and nutrition and a lot easier to harvest!  I may try drying a few, sweet potato air-dried chips, yum.

*I'm Canadian, sweet potatoes are a vegetable,  the idea of a casserole or pie made with them is a bit odd, but I read about them for American Thanksgiving.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #125 on: October 11, 2018, 05:52:01 PM »
I just harvested my sweet potatoes*, not enough to get me much past Christmas.  I need to give them a long raised row, instead of crowding them in a raised bed.  Carole Deppe has a point, squash are similar in taste and nutrition and a lot easier to harvest!  I may try drying a few, sweet potato air-dried chips, yum.

*I'm Canadian, sweet potatoes are a vegetable,  the idea of a casserole or pie made with them is a bit odd, but I read about them for American Thanksgiving.

You got a sweet potato harvest in Canada? Clearly I need to up my game down here. Have always worried my growing season wouldn't be long enough (and the couple of plants I started in pots lost almost every leaf to bunnies once they moved outside).

Anyway, way to go!

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #126 on: October 11, 2018, 06:00:05 PM »
This is the managed fund I was talking about. If you read this article it explains how they pick their ethical investments, which happily also follows on to being good economic investments. These guys actually travel to inspect conditions at factories etc.

https://www.afr.com/markets/how-to-make-money-the-sustainable-way-20180607-h113ks

Hopefully there's something similar in the US & Canada?

Disclaimer: I know one of the guys in the article.


mspym

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Location: Downunder
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #127 on: October 11, 2018, 06:32:27 PM »
This is the managed fund I was talking about. If you read this article it explains how they pick their ethical investments, which happily also follows on to being good economic investments. These guys actually travel to inspect conditions at factories etc.

https://www.afr.com/markets/how-to-make-money-the-sustainable-way-20180607-h113ks

Hopefully there's something similar in the US & Canada?

Disclaimer: I know one of the guys in the article.

That does look interesting but is behind a paywall - company name?
Sadly, our company only gets the paper version of AFR and haven't held on to copies from June.
: /

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #128 on: October 11, 2018, 06:45:25 PM »
This is the managed fund I was talking about. If you read this article it explains how they pick their ethical investments, which happily also follows on to being good economic investments. These guys actually travel to inspect conditions at factories etc.

https://www.afr.com/markets/how-to-make-money-the-sustainable-way-20180607-h113ks

Hopefully there's something similar in the US & Canada?

Disclaimer: I know one of the guys in the article.

That does look interesting but is behind a paywall - company name?
Sadly, our company only gets the paper version of AFR and haven't held on to copies from June.
: /

That's weird that I can read it. I don't subscribe. It's Stewart Investing. They sort of sit within Colonial I think. The fees are about 1% so same as Vanguard retail I guess?

ETA: HOLD ON! Let me find a link. It's saying institutional investors only but that's not right. Stewart Investors not investing btw.

Here's the some of the interesting bits of the text from the article. They basically really delve into things!

"The term "sustainable investing" is often used interchangeably with labels such as "ethical" or "socially responsible". There is no single label that encapsulates the broad church of this style of investing, so Edgerton lays out the philosophy.

"The way we look at it is thinking, OK, if you are going to allocate capital to the economies of the world, how are they going to transition for our lower-carbon future? How are they going to work for the tens and hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty? How are they going to deal with massive healthcare issues such as diabetes?

"And how we invest and allocate capital today is going to have fascinating implications over the coming decades with how those economies develop, but also provides fantastic opportunities in interesting areas to invest."

For example, the fund is invested in soy milk company Vita Soy. The starting point was that there is "obviously huge demand among the emerging middle class in China for beverages", Edgerton says.

The team looked at a Chinese dairy company as well as some well-established Coca-Cola brands. When comparing the three, the soy milk company emerged the best positioned from a sustainability angle.

"Dairy is very, very water-intensive," Edgerton explains. "China has a huge issue with water sustainability, and when you analyse the supply chains there are real risks sitting there.

"There's also the health positioning of soy milk, which is clearly much better positioned than the Coca-Cola company. Up to 100 million people in China are at risk of type 2 diabetes, so at some point sugar taxes and things like that are a real threat." (There are at least 31 taxes on sugar around the world, he says.)

 "Brambles is a fascinating to us in terms of what is called the 'circular economy'," Edgerton says.
"Every great sustainability idea is not necessarily a good investment," he adds. "You need to maintain rigorous, proper investment discipline and understand the risks and opportunities around it."

"We are huge fans of distributed solar energy but we don't actually own any solar companies because we can't find any that meet our very strict investment criteria," Gait says"
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 06:58:27 PM by Fresh Bread »

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #129 on: October 11, 2018, 07:02:49 PM »
Mspym this is a good place to start:
https://responsibleinvestment.org

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9432
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #130 on: October 11, 2018, 07:05:27 PM »
I just harvested my sweet potatoes*, not enough to get me much past Christmas.  I need to give them a long raised row, instead of crowding them in a raised bed.  Carole Deppe has a point, squash are similar in taste and nutrition and a lot easier to harvest!  I may try drying a few, sweet potato air-dried chips, yum.

*I'm Canadian, sweet potatoes are a vegetable,  the idea of a casserole or pie made with them is a bit odd, but I read about them for American Thanksgiving.

You got a sweet potato harvest in Canada? Clearly I need to up my game down here. Have always worried my growing season wouldn't be long enough (and the couple of plants I started in pots lost almost every leaf to bunnies once they moved outside).

Anyway, way to go!

I found a nursery that carried short season starter slips, I've kept them going for 4 years now. And Vesey's (PEI) carries them too.  They are still a semi-tropical plant, they started having dead leaves when the tomatoes were still fine with the colder nights.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #131 on: October 11, 2018, 07:07:03 PM »
I'll have to dig into shorter season sweet potatoes. Thanks!

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9432
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #132 on: October 11, 2018, 08:10:12 PM »
I'll have to dig into shorter season sweet potatoes. Thanks!

My pleasure.   :-)

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: Southern California
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #133 on: October 11, 2018, 09:01:06 PM »
For anyone thinking it's too difficult to get the whole country to change a habit, being that we are such independent people and don't like being told what to do (Americans), I'd like to point out the American male went from over 50% smokers to less than 17% from 1955 to 2015. A concerted campaign and a political awareness of the facts regarding pollution (versus the hysterics) and affects on health, economy and the coastline can put even the reddest politicians on the side of the environment. Self interest is universal. Green investing has been found profitable in quite a few red states. Corporations poisoning the water tables and the air around isn't just a problem for liberals, our fisheries and tourist attractions need to make a profit too, right?

mspym

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Location: Downunder
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #134 on: October 11, 2018, 09:16:17 PM »
Mspym this is a good place to start:
https://responsibleinvestment.org

Thanks! I am also planning a skype session with a friend who has just been finishing up a conference on impact investing. I mean, this sort of analysis is her Actual Grown Up Job.

Sheesh I have had all the resources I need at my fingertips and have just not made use of them. If that's not an illustration of how we get into the situation, I don't know what is.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #135 on: October 11, 2018, 09:20:56 PM »
Mspym this is a good place to start:
https://responsibleinvestment.org

Thanks! I am also planning a skype session with a friend who has just been finishing up a conference on impact investing. I mean, this sort of analysis is her Actual Grown Up Job.

Sheesh I have had all the resources I need at my fingertips and have just not made use of them. If that's not an illustration of how we get into the situation, I don't know what is.

Same.

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #136 on: October 11, 2018, 10:02:04 PM »
For anyone thinking it's too difficult to get the whole country to change a habit, being that we are such independent people and don't like being told what to do (Americans), I'd like to point out the American male went from over 50% smokers to less than 17% from 1955 to 2015. A concerted campaign and a political awareness of the facts regarding pollution (versus the hysterics) and affects on health, economy and the coastline can put even the reddest politicians on the side of the environment. Self interest is universal. Green investing has been found profitable in quite a few red states. Corporations poisoning the water tables and the air around isn't just a problem for liberals, our fisheries and tourist attractions need to make a profit too, right?

That is really awesome and I agree that big changes like that can be made. However, the science all agrees that we have YEARS rather than DECADES to make these changes. So if you can think of a strategy that will get us to less than 50% of our current emissions within 10 years, and down to 0 emissions by 2040, please tell us. Because the message has been consistent since at least my childhood (I learned about this in elementary school, early 90s) and things have only gotten worse. :(

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: Southern California
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #137 on: October 11, 2018, 11:20:31 PM »
There aren't any magic bullet solutions. What I'm saying is that change is possible, and large change comes about from several actions. Tesla now has the car with the highest net revenue. This car didn't exist 10 years ago. Pretty damn impressive. There exists the drive and people are well on there way to changing the world even if a large portion of people aren't on board. No need to throw up the hands with an all or nothing attitude.

diapasoun

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2112
  • Location: California
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #138 on: October 12, 2018, 03:38:10 PM »
PTF because I've been really, really enjoying this discussion (although I don't have anything particularly useful to say that hasn't been said by anyone else....)

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #139 on: October 12, 2018, 05:01:15 PM »
For anyone thinking it's too difficult to get the whole country to change a habit, being that we are such independent people and don't like being told what to do (Americans), I'd like to point out the American male went from over 50% smokers to less than 17% from 1955 to 2015. A concerted campaign and a political awareness of the facts regarding pollution (versus the hysterics) and affects on health, economy and the coastline can put even the reddest politicians on the side of the environment. Self interest is universal. Green investing has been found profitable in quite a few red states. Corporations poisoning the water tables and the air around isn't just a problem for liberals, our fisheries and tourist attractions need to make a profit too, right?

Many other examples of dramatic change, sometimes in years:

  • Smoking
  • Drunk driving (in my lifetime it was normal to ask for "one for the road," literally to drink before driving)
  • Seat belts (everyone I know wears them without thinking about it. In my childhood I remember people getting angry being told what to do)
  • Leaded gasoline
  • The ozone layer

There are others. Different contexts, strategies, regulations, etc, but doing things before means we can do them again.

People used to think nothing of lighting cigarettes on airplanes. Can you imagine what would happen if you lit a fire on a plane today? Talk about an about face.

One day people will look at single use plastic that way, as well as unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions.

You can hear influential people changing their behavior on my podcast, Leadership and the Environment. Guests include TED speakers with tens of millions of views, a Presidential Medal of Freedom honoree, a Superbowl winner, several #1 bestselling authors, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and more.

Coming soon: the head of West Point's leadership department, possibly a Nobel Prize winner, and more. I'm just starting.

My goal is to create community, so people stop feeling "If I act but no one else does then it won't matter," by showcasing influential people changing.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9432
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #140 on: October 12, 2018, 05:21:01 PM »
Ozone was an international effort, as outlined in the Montreal protocol
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-organizations/ozone-layer-depletion-montreal-convention.html

The Kyoto accord was supposed to do the same for green house gases, but we all know how that went.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3725
  • Location: Avalon
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #141 on: October 12, 2018, 05:40:48 PM »
Ozone was an international effort, as outlined in the Montreal protocol
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-organizations/ozone-layer-depletion-montreal-convention.html

The Kyoto accord was supposed to do the same for green house gases, but we all know how that went.

It appears that the announcement of success on protecting the ozone layer may have been premature, as China is producing CFCs again -

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ozone-hole-chemicals-cfc-increase-mystery-source-east-asia-antarctica-a8354481.html
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/the-hole-in-the-ozone-could-be-growing-again-heres-why/


Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #142 on: October 12, 2018, 06:05:01 PM »

The argument is simple: government regulation is effective when there are externalities that affect a third party. He suggests that carbon pricing is a good tool.

This is a case where I agree with Friedman.

Even better than a carbon tax would be a cap and trade system, which encourages industries that can cheaply carbonize to do it quickly. 

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #143 on: October 12, 2018, 07:10:49 PM »
OZY seems to really be taking the climate coverage seriously after the IPCC report. Here's a "Special Briefing" that curates articles, videos, and a selection of books.

https://www.ozy.com/need-to-know/special-briefing-the-new-frontiers-of-climate-change/89915


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #144 on: October 12, 2018, 08:46:16 PM »

The argument is simple: government regulation is effective when there are externalities that affect a third party. He suggests that carbon pricing is a good tool.

This is a case where I agree with Friedman.

Even better than a carbon tax would be a cap and trade system, which encourages industries that can cheaply carbonize to do it quickly.

The downside of cap and trade is that you need to build in a strong mechanism to actually REDUCE carbon emissions, not just prevent further growth. It's possible to do that in a cap and trade context (for example having the government purchase up and sequester extra carbon emission rights when they drop below a certain price floor, or have each unit of emission rights shrink a little each year (so the right to emit 1,000 tons of CO2 in 2019 becomes 950 in 2020, 900 in 2021 and so on), but none of the cap and trade proposals I'm familiar with incorporate such a mechanism.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #145 on: October 12, 2018, 11:01:10 PM »
regarding quick change.

"Appeal to Identity"

Any message that appeals to identity, where someone feels they are being truly "American" or "Texan" or "<insert identity here>" by acting in accordance with the thing you want to change - will bring change.

An example discussed at length by the Heath brothers in their book 'Switch' is the anti-littering campaign in Texas. The campaign showcased high profile, quintessential Texans, throwing their litter in a garbage can and saying, 'Don't mess with Texas'.  Suddenly, from truckers to teachers, every Texan was an anti-litter warrior, and they gave major Texan stink eye to anyone who littered.

Unfortunately, around 2009, 'skeptic' became a de-facto identity. The people who want to continue the status quo with us burning fossil fuels unfettered, were very effective at helping people identify as 'skeptics' especially around the time of Climate gate. 'Skeptic' sounds smart. It sounds rational. It sounds conservative. And it allows people to dismiss evidence, which is convenient, especially when that evidence is challenging one's devotion to this libertarian/capitalist ideology most of us in the western world were indoctrinated with. So being a skeptic makes life comfortable again. Being a 'skeptic' helps people gulp down the mountains of pablum put out by fossil fuel sponsored think tanks like AEI and the Manhattan Institute.

So what's the identity we appeal to? The 'skeptic' camp has already poisoned words like 'global' 'globalist', 'green', 'environmental', and 'justice'. Those are associated with whiny, entitled, naive SJWs who could do with some guddumned discipline.

Given where we are, how to we appeal to identity? Who are the people we need to appeal to? Is it older privileged people?  The 1%? The .1%?

Maybe we need people to make the connection to their children and grandchildren. "Stop supporting leaders who are gambling your children's future on a 3% long-shot."

IDK - that's not appeal to identity, it's more argumentative and too blamey. But seriously, that's what the fossil-fuel industry sponsored 'skeptics' are doing. They are convincing people to let them gamble humanity's future on a long shot. (which actually isn't a long shot - it's a 0% chance we avert calamity).

How would you craft a 'Don't mess with Texas' style appeal to identity for averting global warming - to the people who need to adopt this messaging the most?

'Don't mess with Earth', 'Don't mess with my home'?  These aren't good. Obviously it needn't follow the 'don't mess with' phrasing. What are your ideas?

« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 11:46:00 PM by Malaysia41 »

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #146 on: October 12, 2018, 11:37:01 PM »
@Malaysia41 I haven't read Overshoot! I looked at a review just now as well as the synopsis. It doesn't seem particularly focused on climate change, but if I'm understanding correctly, the idea is that human beings are inevitably going to ruin themselves with exhausting our resources in general. I'd love to hear more about why you recommend this as reading material, since you obviously are making very thoughtful lifestyle changes and advocating in many ways!

@wordnerd It is pretty dismal feeling! A 10 year timeline feels so so so short, even if that's "optimistic" by some standards. I guess we can't do anything but keep doing our best. Can't wait to get baby outside in the real world so I can feel more like a normal person and can get back to trying to be more involved locally.

I see it like this. We are a species on this earth who is well into ecological overshoot. Like other species, it's inevitable.

But - we have these marvelous brains and gumption and reason and skill .... we could use these assets to you know, dampen the overshoot and soften the landing and maybe just maybe, preserve our environment just enough to at least let humanity through the bottleneck, and hopefully, at most, make it less painful for the generations of humans who will experience the collapse.

Like Catton describes in the book, we can be like an algae bloom, that grows and dies off but comes back again. Or, we can be like bacteria in a cask full of crushed grapes, eating through all the sugars and generating poisonous alcohol that, in the end, kills all the bacteria. They don't get out of that cask alive. Right now we are behaving like bacteria, and I think we could at least try to behave like the algae.  ( I may not have the biology here 100% nailed, but you get the picture).

I mean, we can do this. Obviously we are neither algae nor bacteria. We are capable of working together for common purpose and fighting for our survival. Our brains are our strength and we should use them. But our brains are also our weakness. Our brains can be hijacked. Like my parent's and brothers's brains have been. They've been so thoroughly duped into ideological inflexibility, they are unwilling to consider evidence that would have them doubting their ideologies.

The hyper-libertarian capitalistic orthodoxy that so many subscribe to, is making us behave like the bacteria, when we could instead behave more like the algae.

Note that in both analogies we're in overshoot, and will collapse. At this point it's a matter of when exactly. I'm guessing it's coming in my lifetime. I'm gen X. But it's not just about when collapse comes, it's about how painful that collapse will be, and whether humanity will survive it.

Will we collapse to rise again, or collapse into extinction? Am I really generation eXtinction? The more I study what's going on, the more this is what I'm coming to believe.  At the very least, I'm in for the rapid collapse. We're already in collapse, but we haven't hit the steep ramp down yet. I think I'll be here for it.

And then there is my precious boy. Last night, I baked a birthday cake for his 13th birthday party, which is today. I'm am sad and scared for his future. At least I've lived 40+ years. His life is only beginning. We should be at a point where we are finalizing the transition to clean energy and hyper-optimized energy efficient living, and creating a promising future for our children. We could have followed the advice of wise, well-researched scientists, but instead we followed the greed of capitalists.  I'm still receiving emails from my dad quoting op-eds telling him he can 'safely ignore climate alarmists'.   Even so, even if we'd embraced clean energy in the 70s and stopped burning coal in the 80s, of course, that would only encourage our species to grow and eventually there'd be some other resource constraint causing collapse. It is all ecology. I just think that, given that we can understand the underlying science, and given that we can be ingenious when we need to, we could at least try to manage our predicaments.

At this point, it's not a choice between deciding whether to focus on clean energy, or atmospheric interventions, or controlling population growth, it's ALL OF THE ABOVE. You needn't choose 1 thing.

Yes - we should pursue technological solutions to get carbon out of the air - but in the meantime, stop eating beef and dairy. And spread the word and get others to adopt a whole food plant based diet*.

Yes, we should make contraception freely available to all people on the planet, and make sure everyone has decent healthcare and fewer babies - and in the meantime bike rather than drive, take public transport rather than fly.

So I'm fighting. And I'm trying to widen my circle of control. For my son. What else can I do?

*WFPB diet:Seriously I've never loved food so much. Since adopting a WFPB diet, I feel zero shame around eating, and I'm at my ideal weight without even trying. My blood work is stellar. But these are side benefits. All I'm saying is adopting a WFPB diet has side benefits. it's great for the planet, great for your health, and way better for the animals. We breed these poor babies into a tortuous existence all so we can harden our arteries after digesting their flesh. Maybe that sounds like crazy vegan talk but well, it's truth. If you want 22 days of support transitioning to a WFPB diet, check out challenge22.com. And join us in the WFPB diet thread over in the throw down the gauntlet section.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 11:41:12 PM by Malaysia41 »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #147 on: October 13, 2018, 12:17:13 AM »
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.

I have a friend who makes this argument. He is childless and his hobby is flying aircraft. It is perhaps possible that this is a self-serving argument.

It doesn't matter if what we do has an impact or not. "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support." - your countryman Henry David Thoreau.


Now, what sort of lifestyle might we choose if we wished to wash our hands of personal contribution to climate change, and not to give it practically our support? I would suggest that many of the things we could do are things which would also help our finances and our personal health: stop flying, home and work closer to each-other and walk and cycle rather than drive, eat less junk food and meat, use less natural gas and electricity, and so on. If you care only about finances, these are all good things to do; if you care only about health, these are all good things to do; and if you care only about the environment, these are all good things to do.

Further, once you consider the environment of other countries, and how places like China have worse environmental practices than most of the West, and then consider also the collapse of manufacturing in the West, "buy local" is both an environmentalist and a patriotic maxim.

I'm old-fashioned. I believe: duty first. Whether or not I pay my taxes, do jury duty or military or civilian service of some kind, whether I speak well of my wife behind her back or not, whether or not I call people by racial epithets when out of their hearing, the practical impact of these things is almost zero. Nonetheless an adult in a civilised society has duties. A duty is something which whether you like it or not and whether it makes a difference or not you simply must do. A society is nothing but an accumulation of kept promises and duties met.

Now, some may reply that we as humans have no duties to one another. And I would answer that this is indeed a popular point of view, and explains much of the world's problems now, but I wash my hands of such an idea, and do not give it practically my support.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 12:25:46 AM by Kyle Schuant »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #148 on: October 13, 2018, 09:24:09 AM »
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.

I have a friend who makes this argument. He is childless and his hobby is flying aircraft. It is perhaps possible that this is a self-serving argument.

It doesn't matter if what we do has an impact or not. "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support." - your countryman Henry David Thoreau.


Now, what sort of lifestyle might we choose if we wished to wash our hands of personal contribution to climate change, and not to give it practically our support? I would suggest that many of the things we could do are things which would also help our finances and our personal health: stop flying, home and work closer to each-other and walk and cycle rather than drive, eat less junk food and meat, use less natural gas and electricity, and so on. If you care only about finances, these are all good things to do; if you care only about health, these are all good things to do; and if you care only about the environment, these are all good things to do.

Further, once you consider the environment of other countries, and how places like China have worse environmental practices than most of the West, and then consider also the collapse of manufacturing in the West, "buy local" is both an environmentalist and a patriotic maxim.

I'm old-fashioned. I believe: duty first. Whether or not I pay my taxes, do jury duty or military or civilian service of some kind, whether I speak well of my wife behind her back or not, whether or not I call people by racial epithets when out of their hearing, the practical impact of these things is almost zero. Nonetheless an adult in a civilised society has duties. A duty is something which whether you like it or not and whether it makes a difference or not you simply must do. A society is nothing but an accumulation of kept promises and duties met.

Now, some may reply that we as humans have no duties to one another. And I would answer that this is indeed a popular point of view, and explains much of the world's problems now, but I wash my hands of such an idea, and do not give it practically my support.
 

I have raised an eyebrow at many of your posts on this board, but you have made a truly impressive statement here.

Thank you.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #149 on: October 13, 2018, 10:47:41 AM »
@Malaysia41 Thanks for sharing such a thoughtful reply. I'm expecting my first child (also a boy!) and am in a similar-ish mindset. I am determined that even if the future is full of challenges, it will be something our civilizations are gearing up to survive.