Author Topic: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5  (Read 13264 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #250 on: October 17, 2018, 03:17:13 PM »
Fortunately/unfortunately, climate change isn't really abstract anymore. There are lots of changes that are very apparent in physical environments now related to the way things are changing. We're not stopping climate change, sure, because it's already here. But we're trying to make sure we have something sustainable to move forward on so that it doesn't get a whole lot worse.

I'm gleaning there are a few approaches here that I've seen. 1) It's futile. Do your best to prepare and save yourself. 2) It's futile. Do what you can to lessen the effects, anyway. 3) We have a chance to make things better. Do everything you can to be part of the solution. I guess they're all fairly valid. No one's going with option, "EHHH, WHO GIVES A SHIT, WE ALL DIE ANYWAY, PARTY HARDY." Which is a relief.

Being in the camp #3 myself, it's been really awesome to hear what different folks are doing, reading the resources you've shared, and figuring out how I can do more to live a lower emissions day-to-day. I think when I'm tracking my finances & gen advocacy in my MMM journal, I'll also start with tracking my carbon footprint and how even the smallest actions I make make a difference.

Meanwhile in Florida: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/411679-pence-in-georgia-after-looking-at-hurricane-michael-damage-causes-of

Ignore, lie, and obstruct. Very frustrating. It definitely pushes me towards 1 or 2.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #251 on: October 17, 2018, 04:20:45 PM »
Fortunately/unfortunately, climate change isn't really abstract anymore. There are lots of changes that are very apparent in physical environments now related to the way things are changing. We're not stopping climate change, sure, because it's already here. But we're trying to make sure we have something sustainable to move forward on so that it doesn't get a whole lot worse.

I'm gleaning there are a few approaches here that I've seen. 1) It's futile. Do your best to prepare and save yourself. 2) It's futile. Do what you can to lessen the effects, anyway. 3) We have a chance to make things better. Do everything you can to be part of the solution. I guess they're all fairly valid. No one's going with option, "EHHH, WHO GIVES A SHIT, WE ALL DIE ANYWAY, PARTY HARDY." Which is a relief.

Being in the camp #3 myself, it's been really awesome to hear what different folks are doing, reading the resources you've shared, and figuring out how I can do more to live a lower emissions day-to-day. I think when I'm tracking my finances & gen advocacy in my MMM journal, I'll also start with tracking my carbon footprint and how even the smallest actions I make make a difference.

Meanwhile in Florida: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/411679-pence-in-georgia-after-looking-at-hurricane-michael-damage-causes-of

Ignore, lie, and obstruct. Very frustrating. It definitely pushes me towards 1 or 2.

I don't give a shit about this sham of an administration, if I am being honest. Local/state govs can be even more effective on climate issues, so I am going to be pretty depressed when Nov 6 results come in, especially for my state, I am sure. But I'll get over it and keep working. My only job right now is to make sure people in my shitty state have IDs, are able and ready to vote, and getting them to the polls. And beyond that, being a good neighbor and making sure they're getting what they need to live their lives well and giving money to the orgs that make that possible.

The GOP doesn't represent the interests or even beliefs of most Americans (the Dems barely do) and it's not going to be able to keep up the frail victories they've secured for themselves through gerrymandering and voter suppression.

SCOTUS is going to have to move the way society does, just like they did for civil rights; it would be untenable for a minority court to hold a majority population hostage and, even if they were unAmerican and stupid enough to try, Congress would have to step in and address term limits.


STUBBORN, FOOLHARDY OPTIMISM, GO!
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 04:22:16 PM by Meowkins »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12077
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #252 on: October 18, 2018, 07:26:17 AM »
No one's going with option, "EHHH, WHO GIVES A SHIT, WE ALL DIE ANYWAY, PARTY HARDY." Which is a relief.

I've found this approach is pretty common in some places.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3350
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #253 on: October 18, 2018, 08:03:37 AM »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12077
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #254 on: October 18, 2018, 08:16:45 AM »
No one's going with option, "EHHH, WHO GIVES A SHIT, WE ALL DIE ANYWAY, PARTY HARDY." Which is a relief.

I've found this approach is pretty common in some places.

Like the Trump administration, for example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.972dcf28831a

Most conservatives aren't stupid, they know that climate change is real and that the science is proven.  They tend to embrace the 'We're all gonna die anyway, so fuck it I'm gonna have fun now" approach as a group.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #255 on: October 18, 2018, 08:31:39 AM »
@GuitarStv I actually don't know about that. I think conservative leadership is in general probably super corrupt and in bed with lobbying $$. But, for example, -- not to knock on any particular religious group -- I think that within the evangelical support base there are certainly people who do not believe this is a problem.

I think it confuses me the most when rural America supports antiscience, though, since they are probably experiencing the issues first hand right now. 

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #256 on: October 18, 2018, 08:34:53 AM »
Found a Gallup poll on sentiment: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx

Anecdotally, I've heard from moderates and independents in my circle who also believe that climate change is exaggerated for political gain. So I guess some of those answers aren't too surprising to me.

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #257 on: October 18, 2018, 08:46:56 AM »
That's all true, but I'm skeptical this is a realistic path to a solution.    Everyone knows you should save for retirement.  Most people don't.  Everyone already knows you should exercise.  Most people don't.   Everyone already knows you should eat right.  Most people don't.   Everyone already knows that it costs lots of money to drive a big SUV.   Lots of people still do.    Everyone already knows some extra attic insulation is a good investment.  Most people don't get around to it.  All those things provide the individual with benefits, directly and indirectly, and most people just don't get around to it.  And let's face it.  If people are cold they are going to turn up the heat.  If they are hot, they'll flip on the AC.  You might convince them to set the thermostat at 66 instead of 69, but you won't get much more than that.   And maybe not even that. 

So now we have global warming where the benefits are kind of abstract and occur in the future.  Can we really convince people to change their lifestyles because of this issue, when they won't already?  I find that unlikely.  I believe there must be systemic changes how we generate and consume energy.

On the other hand, more people brush their teeth, wear seat belts, don't drive drunk, etc than ever before.

The people I know who have changed to pollute less prefer the change and don't find it the deprivation or sacrifice you present it as. My strategy isn't to convince people, which I find provokes debate, but to help people share their environmental values and act on them, which they tend to appreciate and thank me for.

If you look for reasons not to start, you'll find them.

If you look for reasons to start, you'll find them too.

We're all free to choose to start or not. I know my choice. I see people follow me and thank me for it, as I thank people I'm following. All my changes have improved my life. You want to keep polluting, that's your business, but my life improves with each reduction I learn to make.

In other words, you'll have to work harder to get me to give up.

norabird

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #258 on: October 18, 2018, 09:24:02 AM »
If it's helpful, this has finally pushed me to switch my banking to Amalgamated and my funds to Fidelity's sustainable fund. Just waiting on my direct deposit to switch and to close up all the larger bank accounts I have (right now, Santander, Barclays and b of a). Fidelity's sustainable fund, I've discovered, has 20% discretionary non-ESG and some holdings in oil/petroleum/refinery companies, so I'm asking them about that and also checking if Amalgamated's funds are better. I did also finally switch my energy provider to one of the green options (though I honestly don't know which one, that was a very overwhelming process with lots of choice and little clarity).

I do feel like these aren't enough and I am still flying a fair amount (the luxury of being able to take longer trips by train is not yet mine), and I'm still eating meat, but doing the administrative lifts that I can at least.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #259 on: October 18, 2018, 09:50:36 AM »
Found a Gallup poll on sentiment: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx

Anecdotally, I've heard from moderates and independents in my circle who also believe that climate change is exaggerated for political gain. So I guess some of those answers aren't too surprising to me.

I feel like we forget the massive disinformation campaign starting at the beginning of this century, but really taking off from 2009 onwards, with climategate.

Way back in  2002, Frank Luntz, right wing linguist/propagandist who has given us such hits as 'death tax' for the estate tax and 'government takeover of healthcare' for the ACA, suggested the Bush administration discuss 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' because climate change sounded less man-made and less severe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

In 2008, the year before climategate, Pelosi and Gingrich made this ad:

https://youtu.be/qi6n_-wB154

Then in 2009, climategate hit, and the republican noise machine lit the night up with it. 

~ 1000 e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK, were stolen and released. The language in the emails was set upon and spun into controversy. For example, a researcher had written in one of the e-mails about doing a math 'trick' to bridge disparate data sets - one from tree ring data, another from ice core samples. The 'trick' turned out to be legit, iirc, but the language was seized upon by journalists like James Delingpole, who suggested massive fraud and collusion among climate scientists to trick us.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

There's a BBC Horizon episode on climategate called 'science under attack' that goes into more detail if you're interested: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql

In the end, 7 independent investigations concluded the climategate controversy was much ado about nothing. And yet - STILL - my dad - a man with a masters degree in engineering - still thinks all climate scientists are full of shit. Because no matter the aftermath, he'll always remember the word 'trick' and climategate.

And now we have global warming accelerating before us, and with it the possible|probable extinction of humanity.  Global warming is talked about as if a mere political football. It's come down to mattering what some Rush Limbaugh listener believes. It's fucking outrageous. 

Is this what they mean by the tail wagging the dog? People are fed disinformation, they develop an incorrect belief, and then society panders to those beliefs? No matter the existential effects? I wouldn't care so much if their willful ignorance wasn't such a threat to us all.

I mean, even if we were all agreed on the science, and what to do about it, this threat could still wipe us out. But FFS, this is exasperating.

So I grow a bit flummoxed talking about the political opinions of people who can't be bothered to do a little independent research and double check their assumptions. Even as we're held hostage by the people inspiring those opinions. It's all so aggravating.

You guys do remember climategate, right? What was your experience with it and the aftermath?

Lastly, did any of you watch that Nate Hagens 'Blindspots and Superheroes' lecture? I'd love to know what you think.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 09:55:56 AM by Malaysia41 »

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #260 on: October 18, 2018, 09:52:52 AM »
If it's helpful, this has finally pushed me to switch my banking to Amalgamated and my funds to Fidelity's sustainable fund. Just waiting on my direct deposit to switch and to close up all the larger bank accounts I have (right now, Santander, Barclays and b of a). Fidelity's sustainable fund, I've discovered, has 20% discretionary non-ESG and some holdings in oil/petroleum/refinery companies, so I'm asking them about that and also checking if Amalgamated's funds are better. I did also finally switch my energy provider to one of the green options (though I honestly don't know which one, that was a very overwhelming process with lots of choice and little clarity).

I do feel like these aren't enough and I am still flying a fair amount (the luxury of being able to take longer trips by train is not yet mine), and I'm still eating meat, but doing the administrative lifts that I can at least.

I love it!  Will you tell us what you hear about Amalgamated funds?

(By the way, @norabird , I made a video for my book which comes out in Feb and is on Amazon now for pre-order. Nothing to do with climate change, but I wouldn't be publishing book with an actual real publisher if it hadn't been for you! Thanks again!)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 11:22:20 AM by Malaysia41 »

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #261 on: October 18, 2018, 10:03:06 AM »
I was 12 in 2002, so I don't remember climategate. I've never heard of it at all, actually. Having worked in marketing and communications in the sciences, and taken a few classes on it, it's been my observation that the consensus is that science communications on this issue have been poorly funded and executed, so I am not surprised.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #262 on: October 18, 2018, 10:16:10 AM »
I was 12 in 2002, so I don't remember climategate. I've never heard of it at all, actually. Having worked in marketing and communications in the sciences, and taken a few classes on it, it's been my observation that the consensus is that science communications on this issue have been poorly funded and executed, so I am not surprised.

By the way I wasn't attacking your comment even as I quoted it @Meowkins. You just made me think about the history of what led us to where we are today and I thought I'd share my memory of it.

Yeah - my take is that even as scientists could improve their communication skills, the problem has more to do with the expansive and massive network of people funded by fossil fuel interests to 'manufacture doubt' about global warming - just as the tobacco companies had done in the 80s.

I would urge anyone who hasn't already, to read Jane Mayer's Dark Money book about the disinformation networks that are funded mainly by the Koch donor network. It's easy to dismiss mentions of the Kochs as being the stuff of conspiracy stories. It's easy to dismiss their influence as being the 'other' George Soros. I would say don't dismiss the $ behind the disinformation campaigns so easily. Ms. Mayer's book is well-researched and jaw dropping. Seriously, read it.  Here's a PDF of it: http://parkour.negaah.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dark-Money-Jane-Mayer.pdf

The other one is Merchants of Doubt. IIRC, there's a book and a documentary.
 
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 10:18:08 AM by Malaysia41 »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2997
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #263 on: October 18, 2018, 10:25:37 AM »
I didn't know it was called that, but I certainly remember the circus with the stolen e-mails in 2009. That was one of the earlier examples I'm aware of that illustrated how in this day and age people say enough things by e-mail that if you are able to freely rummage through their inbox you can pick and chose words and phrases to support pretty much any narrative at all. The precursor to the weaponized FOIA requests that are now sometimes used to go after any academic at public universities who strongly advocates for a position some group doesn't like.

Hirondelle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #264 on: October 18, 2018, 10:49:55 AM »
To add some positive/hopefull information to the discussion; several universities in my country have made the change to make the default menu offered at meeting/conference lunches vegetarian. It's still possible to get meat, but it has to be requested seperately (like people with allergies or vegans have to do). Turns out, only a small % of people is so addicted to their carnivorious habits that they'll do this. This has just been the impact of a single professor suggesting to the caterer why vegetarian wasn't the default option..

Other examples are university canteens having 'meat free mondays': no meat sold in the canteen on Mondays. However this led to more protests than the 'default vegetarian, meat optional' approach. I've read about some French schools that offer their students a vegatarian or vegan lunch at least once a week.

If people could encourage their companies and schools to make vegatarian food more of a default and meat/dairy the option that takes more effort, big differences could be made as this does include people that are indifferent/don't want to do any efforts without limiting anyone in their choices.

@norabird great job on moving around your money to more sustainable accounts!
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 10:57:46 AM by Hirondelle »

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #265 on: October 18, 2018, 10:53:40 AM »
@Malaysia41 Oh no worries! I didn't feel attacked. Thanks for clarifying though. :) I honestly am not surprised that people are falling prey to disinformation. It's disheartening to see how easily Americans are fooled.

norabird

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #266 on: October 18, 2018, 11:10:53 AM »
@Hirondelle that's awesome about the meat free switch institutionally!

I had a super tasty avocado salad for lunch today and will have to seek that out more...though I know avocados are very thirsty for water so nothing is perfect.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #267 on: October 18, 2018, 11:19:41 AM »
To add some positive/hopefull information to the discussion; several universities in my country have made the change to make the default menu offered at meeting/conference lunches vegetarian. It's still possible to get meat, but it has to be requested seperately (like people with allergies or vegans have to do). Turns out, only a small % of people is so addicted to their carnivorious habits that they'll do this. This has just been the impact of a single professor suggesting to the caterer why vegetarian wasn't the default option..

Other examples are university canteens having 'meat free mondays': no meat sold in the canteen on Mondays. However this led to more protests than the 'default vegetarian, meat optional' approach. I've read about some French schools that offer their students a vegatarian or vegan lunch at least once a week.

Interesting data point. This is the world* I'd like to see us flip to. Not an outright ban of meat and dairy, but a world where vegan was the default option in most places, and people could ask for dairy and meat alternatives if they really want them. It would be a way more sustainable and humane world.

Of course we still have our massively polluting militaries, car-based infrastructures, people commuting in traffic to meaningless purposeless jobs, absurdly cheap flights, and all the rest. So we wouldn't be out of danger. But we'd have fewer grieving dairy cows and way fewer methane emissions. Well, until the arctic permafrost burps up a big ol belch of methane. Which is coming.

Sorry Hirondelle I know you were trying to be positive, and here I am turning into Eeyore.

In that spirit, I give you some Pooh based vegan messaging:



edit: actually, ideally I'd like all of humanity to regard our fellow creatures as being here *with* us and not *for* us and for us to stop using animals at all.  But practically speaking, if vegan was the default, and meat and dairy were the special options that could be requested, that at least would be a much better situation, for all of us earthlings.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 11:40:36 AM by Malaysia41 »

Yankuba

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
  • Location: Long Island, NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #268 on: October 18, 2018, 11:31:39 AM »
My conservative friend at work is an attorney and has a high IQ and he insists humans aren't impacting the weather. Climate has been changing forever, they used to grow grapes in Iceland, much of the planet used to be covered in ice, etc. The climate may be changing but it isn't because of human activity. He regularly sends me "articles" about how XYZ scientist says global warming is a hoax or how the data is being fabricated. The most recent article he sent was this one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

And then I have to put my detective hat on and find the rebuttal:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/07/how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot

There is a lot of fake news out there and even smart people fall for it. My mother and father both have masters degrees and they asked me about some spammy email they got that asked them to opt in for a secret Trump tax cut. TWO MASTERS DEGREES (!) and they still fall for poorly constructed email spam. So of course they aren't going to believe in climate change if Fox News or the WSJ cherry picks data or takes quotes out of context.

This is why I think the only hope is to develop technologies that will suck the CO2 or methane out of the environment. Plenty of conventionally intelligent people don't believe in man made climate change. There is no way they are going to give up meat, dairy, airplanes, single use plastics, automobiles, etc. Half of Americans don't even vote, and that's free! They aren't going to give up their luxuries to save the Marshall Islands. Expecting people to make their finite lives less enjoyable (e.g. vegan diet, public transportation, staycations) for the greater good won't work. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12077
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #269 on: October 18, 2018, 11:40:47 AM »
In that spirit, I give you some Pooh bear based vegan messaging:



It's an interesting message to be delivered from a primarily carnivorous animal to smaller prey.  Kinda puts a darker twist on it.  Is piglet marching towards Pooh's killing floor?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #270 on: October 18, 2018, 11:56:53 AM »
My conservative friend at work is an attorney and has a high IQ and he insists humans aren't impacting the weather. Climate has been changing forever, they used to grow grapes in Iceland, much of the planet used to be covered in ice, etc. The climate may be changing but it isn't because of human activity. He regularly sends me "articles" about how XYZ scientist says global warming is a hoax or how the data is being fabricated. The most recent article he sent was this one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

And then I have to put my detective hat on and find the rebuttal:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/07/how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot

There is a lot of fake news out there and even smart people fall for it. My mother and father both have masters degrees and they asked me about some spammy email they got that asked them to opt in for a secret Trump tax cut. TWO MASTERS DEGREES (!) and they still fall for poorly constructed email spam. So of course they aren't going to believe in climate change if Fox News or the WSJ cherry picks data or takes quotes out of context.

This is why I think the only hope is to develop technologies that will suck the CO2 or methane out of the environment. Plenty of conventionally intelligent people don't believe in man made climate change. There is no way they are going to give up meat, dairy, airplanes, single use plastics, automobiles, etc. Half of Americans don't even vote, and that's free! They aren't going to give up their luxuries to save the Marshall Islands. Expecting people to make their finite lives less enjoyable (e.g. vegan diet, public transportation, staycations) for the greater good won't work.

People are easily influenced, ie, "hackable", as discussed in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/14/yuval-noah-harari-the-new-threat-to-liberal-democracy

If people are easily influenced by bad information, and information is the lifeblood of democracy, does democracy really work?

(I think it is deeply flawed, but the best we have come up with so far)

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #271 on: October 18, 2018, 12:21:41 PM »
In that spirit, I give you some Pooh bear based vegan messaging:



It's an interesting message to be delivered from a primarily carnivorous animal to smaller prey.  Kinda puts a darker twist on it.  Is piglet marching towards Pooh's killing floor?

Reading up on it right now, it seems bears are not primarily carnivorous but are omnivorous with 85% of their diet coming from plants. The other 15% is with a bit of salmon or scavenged deer carcass. Anyway, Pooh strikes me more as your average berry-eatin' honey-lickin' type of bear. So, I don't think Piglet need worry about Pooh. Well, at least not until the global warming apocalypse hits - then it'll be every pooh and piglet for themselves.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #272 on: October 18, 2018, 12:34:06 PM »
I think it's folly to believe we can convince people  like Yankuba's friend that the news they are exposed to/are exposing themselves to is based on unsound science or lies (ETA) and that by so convincing the, we will convince them then to act on climate change.

IMO, people do not usually establish or change their position on previously established philosophical or moral issues based an any evidence, no matter how robust.

People adopt most of their political stances on particular issues because of their broader philosophical or ethical beliefs, or on sheer tribalism, and then they work backward to find evidence to back up those stances, not the other way around.

People often are not developing their opinions about climate change based on reading about the science.  Instead, they believe bullshit non-scientific evidence BECAUSE their foundational worldview (consisting of some combo of the following concepts) is incompatible with most of the actions proposed for humanity to deal with the problem.

1)  God created the world and all other species for humans to use.  Therefore, it is morally good that we do so.  God would not create a world where human use could possibly destroy his creation.  But if by some chance he did, it was deliberate and humans are STILL doing his will by destroying it.  God will save the planet or not according to his will, not ours.   

2)  Evidence of environmental and socio-political breakdown just brings the rapture closer to hand. Therefore climate change is good.

3)  Human individual liberty of choice is the primary moral good, and all infringements upon it are to be resisted unless they involve preventing immediate theft of your private property or imperilment of your personal safety.  Since fighting climate change would involve imposing restrictions on individual choice, and impose economic burdens on individuals, I therefore cannot acknowledge that it  is real or I will face an impossible and irreconcilable moral choice.

4) Globalism is inherently evil and undemocratic. The US capitalist/democratic system as it exists is the greatest human achievement; and therefore nationalism is a foundational moral good.  Fighting climate change will require unprecedented cooperation with other nations, shifts away from capitalism, and subsuming our nation's dominance to that of a greater global community.  This is morally unacceptable, so I cannot acknowledge how serious climate change is or I would be faced with an impossible moral choice.

5) Climate change is real, and serious, but the upheaval in the U.S. economy required to change to a different system would cause economic ruin and/or place too much strain on the socio-political system, potentially causing a breakdown economically and politically (possibilities for U.S. breaking up as a nation or civil violence).  This risk is too great, so I will 1) deny evidence that the consequences will be that serious, or 2) shrug and deal with them as each arises, with the expectation that our nation can adapt over time.

Etc etc etc.  Persuading people with 'better evidence' is unlikely to work in a lot of cases.

As I have said before, I actually think as the consequences of climate change become more easily apparent and more dramatic (more bad storms, more droughts, water/food insecurity, disease, refugees, flooding), it might not move public opinion much at all.  In fact, I'd lay good odds that the worse the consequences get, the more entrenched the deniers will get and the more politicized and deadlocked the issue will become.  Humans are wired to become more irrational, more tribalist, and more nationalist the more they experience fear and insecurity.

Personally, I've never cared that much about the consequences of climate change to humanity.   I mean, I don't want to see increased human suffering b/c of it, but humans are like cockroaches. My species is not going to go extinct from this, and if our numbers are eventually knocked back by several billion, thems the breaks of being morons.  What fills me with insane rage is the mass extinction we are forcing on the rest of the planet.  We know we are doing it, we know we could prevent much of it, and yet we will do nothing.   That is a moral crime that is beyond forgiving and almost beyond imagining, IMO. 

At this point, my only hope is in the inherent selfishness of my species.  If practical consequences are bad enough in a short enough time scale and a politically manageable geographic scale (i.e., East and Gulf Coast cities going underwater, entire farm belt running out of water, etc), then maybe the political will might develop to push for research into a geoengineering fix. Perhaps the cities/states can find solutions that can be scaled up by default. The concept of geoengineering also revolts me on a gut level, not to mention it is dangerous as hell, but at this point, I'll take ANY sliver of hope.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 12:37:15 PM by wenchsenior »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #273 on: October 18, 2018, 12:48:50 PM »
My conservative friend at work is an attorney and has a high IQ and he insists humans aren't impacting the weather. Climate has been changing forever, they used to grow grapes in Iceland, much of the planet used to be covered in ice, etc. The climate may be changing but it isn't because of human activity. He regularly sends me "articles" about how XYZ scientist says global warming is a hoax or how the data is being fabricated. The most recent article he sent was this one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

And then I have to put my detective hat on and find the rebuttal:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/07/how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot

There is a lot of fake news out there and even smart people fall for it. My mother and father both have masters degrees and they asked me about some spammy email they got that asked them to opt in for a secret Trump tax cut. TWO MASTERS DEGREES (!) and they still fall for poorly constructed email spam. So of course they aren't going to believe in climate change if Fox News or the WSJ cherry picks data or takes quotes out of context.

This is why I think the only hope is to develop technologies that will suck the CO2 or methane out of the environment. Plenty of conventionally intelligent people don't believe in man made climate change. There is no way they are going to give up meat, dairy, airplanes, single use plastics, automobiles, etc. Half of Americans don't even vote, and that's free! They aren't going to give up their luxuries to save the Marshall Islands. Expecting people to make their finite lives less enjoyable (e.g. vegan diet, public transportation, staycations) for the greater good won't work.

People are easily influenced, ie, "hackable", as discussed in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/14/yuval-noah-harari-the-new-threat-to-liberal-democracy

If people are easily influenced by bad information, and information is the lifeblood of democracy, does democracy really work?

(I think it is deeply flawed, but the best we have come up with so far)

This reminds me of some research that was discussed on some podcast I listen to (can't remember what, maybe The Weeds).  They were talking about how, prior to the 60s (with the extreme polarization on civil rights/Vietnam) and again in the 80s (with polarization on abortion/Evangelicalism) the majority of registered Dems and Republicans couldn't even explain with any accuracy what their parties' policy stances were!  People didn't much associate their own beliefs about any particular issue with their party affiliation. 

It really was more like just being a fan of a football team.  I was born into a family of rabid Packer fans, and by default here I am, years later, a Packer fan.  No particular reason for it except conditioning.  Likewise, people just adopted the party  that was most popular in their family or town or social group, and didn't really even pay much attention to where parties stood on important policy issues.

I bet this is actually surprisingly true, even today.  I'll bet a big percentage of registered voters couldn't tell you the party policies on most things. 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3124
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #274 on: October 18, 2018, 12:59:32 PM »
Lastly, did any of you watch that Nate Hagens 'Blindspots and Superheroes' lecture? I'd love to know what you think.

I barely started it. I hate when presenters put up slides and read directly from them. But I'll work past that and finish it. :-)

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #276 on: October 18, 2018, 01:30:33 PM »
So now we have global warming where the benefits are kind of abstract and occur in the future.  Can we really convince people to change their lifestyles because of this issue, when they won't already?  I find that unlikely.  I believe there must be systemic changes how we generate and consume energy.

On the other hand, more people brush their teeth, wear seat belts, don't drive drunk, etc than ever before.

The people I know who have changed to pollute less prefer the change and don't find it the deprivation or sacrifice you present it as. My strategy isn't to convince people, which I find provokes debate, but to help people share their environmental values and act on them, which they tend to appreciate and thank me for.

I'm sure that's the case.  But let's be clear.  At no point did I present anything as deprivation or sacrifice.  The opposite.  I said specifically "provide the individual with benefits."  Receiving benefits isn't sacrifice, I'm sure you'll agree. 

I must emphasize most people won't change their behavior even if they understand it is in their own best interests unless there are also systemic changes.   Your examples of seat belts and drunk driving are the great examples of things I'm talking about.   Back in the day, there was no requirement that occupants wear seat belts in vehicles, and penalties for DUI were fairly light and many states even allowed open containers in vehicles.  Over time, blood alcohol limits have decreased, the drinking age has been raised, penalties for DUI have greatly increased, and there have been major public relations efforts as well.   The result has been a decrease in drunken driving.  Similarly, a few years ago jurisdiction began requiring seat belt usage, which was originally a secondary offense in most places (meaning, you couldn't' be pulled over just for not wearing a seat belt), which has trended towards being a primary offense in most places (meaning you can be pulled over), and again, all this happened in concert with a public relations campaign (Click it or ticket!).  On the flip side,  exercise is something everybody knows you should do, but most people don't.   The benefits of regular exercise are obvious and undeniable, but the barrier of actually doing it is too much for most people. 

Again, I am emphasizing benefits, not sacrifice. 

Same thing with climate change.  Leading by example is surely a good thing, but falls far, far, far short of what needs to be done.  Quick example:  State of California did a study and found that 30% of conditioned air leaked into unconditioned spaces, like attics or crawlspaces.  So they changed building codes such that ducts could only leak 5% of conditioned air.  The costs of this change were virtually zero.   We already have building codes and building inspectors, the only change was that the ducts had to be installed properly.  But the savings to consumers was large.  At it is a change that is very difficult for consumers to make themselves.    Every state should have that same code.  There are dozens and dozens of examples just like that that are small individually, but huge in aggregate.   Or there are changes that are huge individually.  Like CAFE standards.    But again, that is a systemic change, that consumers cannot make on their own.   Similarly, a carbon tax would make low carbon energy sources more attractive as well as encourage efficiency.   Again, that is a systemic change, not individual action. 

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #277 on: October 18, 2018, 01:35:55 PM »
Lastly, did any of you watch that Nate Hagens 'Blindspots and Superheroes' lecture? I'd love to know what you think.

I barely started it. I hate when presenters put up slides and read directly from them. But I'll work past that and finish it. :-)

Funny. I didn't even notice that. Anyway, if memory serves correctly, as he continues he speaks more naturally.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #278 on: October 18, 2018, 01:41:55 PM »
@gaja Thanks for these resources! I'm also interested in learning more about "solutions journalism" which seems to be in the vein (at a glance) of the links you posted below. A friend mentioned that change on quality and tone of reporting is becoming more common as the media landscape changes, but I haven't done any more reading on it.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #279 on: October 18, 2018, 03:22:59 PM »
Visualization on climate opinions by Yale Climate Communications program: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #280 on: October 19, 2018, 12:36:12 AM »
Visualization on climate opinions by Yale Climate Communications program: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county

woah that's amazing.

The opinions about reality are depressing. But then you go to the policy opinions and everyone wants carbon taxes, carbon regulation, and tax relief for installing solar panels, for example.

It couldn't be more obvious that our politicians are doing what their corporate donors want, not what their constituents want. Even as their constituents are confused by the science and disinformation campaigns, they still want the government regulating carbon emissions. And what's the GOP platform as of 2016? 

Quote from: "GOP Platform page 20" link=https://gop.com/platform
We oppose any carbon tax. It would increase
energy prices across the board, hitting hardest at
the families who are already struggling to pay their
bills in the Democrats’ no-growth economy.

and

Quote from: "GOP Platform page 21" link=https://gop.com/platform
We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide

The more I learn about what's going on in the world, the more I realize the modern day corporation is a largely unchecked threat. Having worked in a fortune 500 corp for 20 years, I know from direct experience that they are short term oriented psychopaths.  I mean obviously a corporation like the one I worked at is WAY better than say, slavery. But in the end, the only goal is making more money this quarter. That's not the right priority for organizing human society.

The founders who wrote our constitution did not appreciate what the corporation would become. It's chilling to hear my family members talk about how they want our country run like a corporation. Guess what guys - your wish has been fulfilled.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2018, 12:49:13 AM by Malaysia41 »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #281 on: October 19, 2018, 01:09:29 AM »
In everything, governments tend to follow rather than lead. So we as citizens are responsible for setting the right example. We must make the radical seem normal. And by the time citizen action has made government action redundant, the government will take action.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #282 on: October 19, 2018, 10:31:07 AM »
The founders who wrote our constitution did not appreciate what the corporation would become. It's chilling to hear my family members talk about how they want our country run like a corporation. Guess what guys - your wish has been fulfilled.

But the founders did. Remember the East India Company? Th Boston Tea Party was as much anti-corporate power as anything. Just ask Thomas Jefferson:
Quote
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

YevKassem

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #283 on: October 19, 2018, 10:44:06 AM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #284 on: October 19, 2018, 11:35:50 AM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

"Ideas are not responsible for what men do of them."   Our decisions should be based on science and data, not Leo DeCarprio's actions. 


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3124
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #285 on: October 19, 2018, 11:45:33 AM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

"Ideas are not responsible for what men do of them."   Our decisions should be based on science and data, not Leo DeCarprio's actions.

Or, to use an idiom, "Don't cut off your nose to spite the face."

I'm also skeptical of this study. It's based on what's reported rather than what is done. If LEDs were swapped out years ago, would that be reflected?

"What'd you do this week for the environment?"
"Well, five years ago I swapped out my incandescent bulbs for LEDs. I put in more attic insulation 2 years ago."
"That's nice but what'd you do this week?"

Anyone have the full study PDF rather than the headlines? I can't find it.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3350
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #286 on: October 19, 2018, 01:07:00 PM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

"Ideas are not responsible for what men do of them."   Our decisions should be based on science and data, not Leo DeCarprio's actions.

This.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #287 on: October 19, 2018, 01:41:36 PM »
The founders who wrote our constitution did not appreciate what the corporation would become. It's chilling to hear my family members talk about how they want our country run like a corporation. Guess what guys - your wish has been fulfilled.

But the founders did. Remember the East India Company? Th Boston Tea Party was as much anti-corporate power as anything. Just ask Thomas Jefferson:
Quote
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

I know they knew that a corporation could be powerful, and act like a government unto itself - like your example, the East India Company. But I don't think they had any idea that corporations would become what they are today. Of course I'm not a historian so I could be wrong.

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #288 on: October 19, 2018, 03:13:11 PM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

"Ideas are not responsible for what men do of them."   Our decisions should be based on science and data, not Leo DeCarprio's actions.

I would say that we should base our strategies to lead people on what works. Science and data may tell us our goals, but they rarely influence people.

What predicts people installing solar, for example, is less the ecological or financial benefit and more if your neighbor has it. People who know all the facts about diabetes still continue behavior that leads to losing limbs and eyesight. Facts versus inertia, comfort, and convenience is a losing battle.

That's why my strategy is to lead (not try to convince or hold accountable or blame) influential people to share their environmental values and act on them. Everybody wants clean and safe air and water, but nobody wants others telling them what to do. When they act for their reasons, as opposed to being coerced or brow-beaten with facts, they value the experience and results.

I hope to get DiCaprio on my podcast, not because I want people to blindly follow him as a celebrity, but to hear him share his environmental values and his experience acting on them, which I expect to be like everyone else's -- that they find the experience meaningful and want to continue.

Then I believe listeners will choose to explore their personal environmental values, act on them, and love their experience too. No convincing. No guilt or blame. No telling people what to do.

Most guests thank me for prompting them to act and wish they had done it earlier. For example, John Lee Dumas, whose blog makes him over $1 million annually, chose to pick up garbage from the beach every month this year and thanked me for it. You can listen here. I believe hearing a multimillionaire who could pay for someone else to pick up garbage enjoying doing it himself will influence people to do their equivalent. Listeners already tell me they are. Once they find they enjoy acting on their values, they do more, which they enjoy too.

I'm not saying what I do is the only thing to do, just one thing I saw lacking. I support science and education. I just don't rely on it to influence behavior.

The DiCaprio Foundation has already retweeted posts for several guests, so I'm not far. I hope to bring many leaders from many areas since I don't see much effective leadership among environmentalists.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #289 on: October 19, 2018, 03:36:43 PM »
Excellent work, Joshua. I might try this approach with friends - ask them what future they want for their kids and we can visualise it.

I need to speak in particular to one friend who is an economist and who must know the system for pricing externalities is flawed because of politics. I'd like it if she saw some benefit in paying those externalities for the benefit of her kids. Eg getting solar panels, less "stuff" for the kids.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #290 on: October 19, 2018, 04:12:10 PM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

"Ideas are not responsible for what men do of them."   Our decisions should be based on science and data, not Leo DeCarprio's actions.

That's a great ideal, but we do know that chasing ideals is a futile task do we not?.  Accountability is a much more effective tool.  Hypocrisy of others is a motivator for a lot of people.  We can't change that can we?

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #291 on: October 19, 2018, 04:17:41 PM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

Hundreds?  Really?  DeCaprio took a 450 foot plus yacht and his twenty of his buddies down to Brazil for the World Cup.  This yacht could probably sleep 300 people.  I would say thousands not hundreds.  Maybe even tens of thousands.  Gore's home use: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-gores-energy-use/

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3124
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #292 on: October 19, 2018, 05:42:36 PM »
Here is an interesting one:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-true-believers-are-least-likely-to-change-their-own-behavior-study-finds/

I think a lot of people are fed up with the hypocrisy that comes from some of these scientists and celebrity activists. To many, it feels like we are being lied to. If Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio preach about the need to limit carbon emissions, but are responsible themselves for releasing hundreds of times more than the average person, why should we listen to them?  It's the same idea as left-wing politicians and celebrities who have armed guards and/or act in violent movies, but then tell the rest of us that we should ban guns. The knee-jerk reaction for many is to do the opposite of what they are telling us.

People need to start holding these types accountable because they are doing more harm than good.

"Ideas are not responsible for what men do of them."   Our decisions should be based on science and data, not Leo DeCarprio's actions.

That's a great ideal, but we do know that chasing ideals is a futile task do we not?.  Accountability is a much more effective tool.  Hypocrisy of others is a motivator for a lot of people.  We can't change that can we?

Exactly. We need a carbon tax.


Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #293 on: October 19, 2018, 05:48:33 PM »
@JoshuaSpodek I think your approach makes this most sense and is also in line with most psych research on swaying opinion/teaching human beings. We're always more about stories than we are about facts. This is why marketing works when it's word of mouth.

I honestly don't get the ire here re: the celebrities that don't walk the talk. Sure, hypocrisy is annoying, but they're still not wrong. Climate change is a problem regardless of what DiCaprio chooses to do. That doesn't make me less likely to care about climate change, it makes me less likely to respect Al Gore or DiCaprio, which... who cares? I'll never meet them.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3086
  • Location: Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #294 on: October 19, 2018, 06:03:13 PM »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/airlines-carbon-tax-1.4870808

"Airlines say taxing them for their emissions will hurt their profitability".

Um. Yeah? That's the entire fucking point? You raise the price, passing the cost on to the consumer, and use that money to undo the damage flying does! (In theory). Win!

"But we should be exempted because..." ARGH. PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES, DEADBEATS. Pay for the damage you do! How is that difficult?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9240
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #295 on: October 20, 2018, 04:58:00 AM »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/airlines-carbon-tax-1.4870808

"Airlines say taxing them for their emissions will hurt their profitability".

Um. Yeah? That's the entire fucking point? You raise the price, passing the cost on to the consumer, and use that money to undo the damage flying does! (In theory). Win!

"But we should be exempted because..." ARGH. PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES, DEADBEATS. Pay for the damage you do! How is that difficult?

People make choices at least partly on price.  If price reflected true costs, we could make better choices.

It's municipal election time, and for the first time ever environmental concerns were front and center in the candidates' debate.   Having  a big polluter proposing a big plant in the area has certainly got some people paying attention. Unfortunately after 2-3 years of publicity and discussion, lots of people have no clue that this is even on the table, let alone what the potential effects could be.  Too low an information diet?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3654
  • Location: Avalon
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #296 on: October 20, 2018, 05:56:00 AM »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/airlines-carbon-tax-1.4870808

"Airlines say taxing them for their emissions will hurt their profitability".

Um. Yeah? That's the entire fucking point? You raise the price, passing the cost on to the consumer, and use that money to undo the damage flying does! (In theory). Win!

"But we should be exempted because..." ARGH. PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES, DEADBEATS. Pay for the damage you do! How is that difficult?

People make choices at least partly on price.  If price reflected true costs, we could make better choices.

It's municipal election time, and for the first time ever environmental concerns were front and center in the candidates' debate.   Having  a big polluter proposing a big plant in the area has certainly got some people paying attention. Unfortunately after 2-3 years of publicity and discussion, lots of people have no clue that this is even on the table, let alone what the potential effects could be.  Too low an information diet?

For a reflection on the scale of the problem and how long it's been going on, there's this from the McMansion Hell writer Kate Wagner -
https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/02/man-writer-against-nature/

The other day I was walking by a local harbour, just a little one up the river that has the occasional small coaster visiting, and watched for a while a pile of scrap metal being loaded.  Just that relatively small pile, no doubt little or none of it more than a two or three decades old (lots of crushed cars) going to be recycled, probably embedded many lifetimes of one person's carbon use.  We non-industrial folk living in choice residential areas (probably most of us) usually just don't see all the environmental damage that goes into making our comfortable lives: it is carefully hidden from us by the politicians and the urban planners.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2018, 06:03:22 AM by former player »

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9240
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #297 on: October 20, 2018, 01:28:33 PM »
^ This.  The thing about being older is that all this increase in resource use happened during my lifetime.  I can remember when things were different, just.  Beer came in glass bottles, milk came in glass bottles, canned foods came in cans, drinks did not come in cans or plastic bottles.  Meat was wrapped in butcher paper.  There was very little prepared food (some of which I love, like some of the Uncle Ben rices).           Commuters took the bus or streetcar or commuter train to work.


John Galt incarnate!

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #298 on: October 20, 2018, 04:17:13 PM »
But actually, I'm fairly sure reducing food waste and generally moving away from a meat-heavy diet are far more impactful in terms of reducing carbon emissions. .

I was astonished when I learned  that wasted food is the world's third largest waste of energy.

!!!! The third largest !!!!
« Last Edit: October 21, 2018, 12:10:37 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #299 on: October 21, 2018, 02:44:56 AM »
Exactly. We need a carbon tax.
That's useful only if the revenue goes to alternatives and solutions. If I live 30km from work with no train to take, whether petrol is $1.50/lt or $10/lt makes little difference; I simply must get to work, and there is no other way. But if there's a train then I'll take it.

Likewise with many other things, like electricity and so on. Things like tobacco and alcohol are luxuries, not necessities, and so simply taxing the bad works well enough. But things like transport, shelter, food, heating and cooling are necessities (even though we often spend on them as luxuries, the point is some certain minimum spending on them is necessary). Since these things are necessities, we must not only tax the bad but subsidise the good.